Thorns FC: Tickling the twine

After a long week playing in Indio, California (and the Great Carrot Festival therein) the Thorns return from the Coachella Valley Invitational to finish preparing for the 2026 NWSL season. The squad played twice in Indio, and I want to discuss what I saw there.

But during the period they were there the Thorns general manager Jeff Agoos had a public meeting with the fans here in Portland on February 12th, and I wanted to talk briefly about what I got out of that before we talk about preseason soccer.

Agoos Q&A

The session covered a lot of topics, and I’m going to try to concentrate on what seem like the ones that most of the fanbase, especially those here, are interested in.

So…where’s the coach? Who’s the coach?

The “where/when/who” answer was what it’s been since January; “soon” (and keep in mind that it’s been over ten days since the Q&A and “soon” still isn’t “now”).

Supposedly the club has looked here and overseas – with the caveat that the NCAA was largely ruled out simply because conditions, particularly roster-building, are so different there – for an experienced, successful, women’s-game-experienced gaffer who’s also a good people person and “good person” in general.

What I found interesting was Agoos’ almost throwaway comment about wanting someone with more technical and tactical knowledge. That, to me, is saying that the ownership (and Agoos himself, presumably) thought of Rob Gale much like many of us here did; a gaffer long on vibes and short on professional skills.

Agoos also noted, as we go into a bit more in our our next section, that the roster build is going to be highly dependent on the new head coach’s vision.

He didn’t say anything even hinting at names, so we’re still in the dark there.

Speaking of that…how about that roster build..?

Frankly, Agoos said nothing we don’t much know already.

Agoos talked up several of the signings, including defender Carolyn Calzada, midfielders Cassandra Bogere and Shae Harvey, and forward Maddie Padelski.

Interestingly, he name-checked Bogere repeatedly as being a big part of the post-Coffey midfield. Other players named there included Moultrie, Fleming, and, most intriguingly, Castellanos, who as you know Gale used most often as a center-forward or winger.

As we’ll discuss when we get to the matches in Indio a double pivot was suggested, and appears to have been tried, as a post-Coffey workaround for defensive midfield.

Unsurprisingly, the salary cap was also named-checked repeatedly as a complicating factor in recruiting – Agoos more-or-less admitted straight out that the low NWSL cap puts our league out of direct competition for players with the “best leagues in the world” (i.e. the FAWSL, Ligue 1 Feminin, and the Frauenbundesliga) – as well as forcing Portland to rely of other means of enticing players here.

He state definitively that the cap effectively killed any hopes of bidding for Hutton (and, presumably, all the other big-name, high-dollar moves that occurred this winter).

The training ground was mentioned, a lot, as well as other non-monetary attractions like staffing for individual training and conditioning, as the great hopes for making up the recruiting shortfall created by the low cap. “Competing in a different way” was how Agoos put it.

Okay, that’s the real big picture stuff covered. Any other bits and pieces?

Grass field? Don’t get your hopes up. Too much wear, too little money. Maybe someday. Agoos’ conclusion was that all players want to play on a “good grass” pitch, but if forced to choose (and his implication was that here in Portland we do have to choose) they’ll prefer “good turf” over “poor grass”.

Kits – can we be done with Doritos already? No. Last year of three year cycle. Team wants and expects to have more input starting in 2027, but for now we’re stuck with the Nike crap. I was positive that Agoos said that Doritos was in the third year of a three-year kit rotation cycle because I was sure that we swapped kits every two years and that stuck out as a weird thing for him to say. Well, looks like we are on a two-year cycle, because supposedly the club is dropping a new kit Friday.

At this point I’m pretty skittish about kits. As bad as Doritos is – and it’s fugly – the horrific blue thing that was thrown out as the second kit/change strip just eye-searingly worse. We haven’t had a truly memorable jersey since 2020’s Black Rose, and that shirt looks more and more like a unicorn.

We’ll see. Gawd I hope to hell it’s not fucking green.

Oh, and here’s a rundown of our kits in my order of preference. In case you don’t recall how many truly meh kits this team has worn.

Playing style? “Relentless, high-pressing, energetic” but is critically dependent on new HC. Nothing really specific, which, given the lack of gaffer, makes sense.

Rebuilding season(s)? No. Win every year. Club has ten-year strategic plan, though no details on what’s in that plan

ACL injuries? Admitted that, yes, a big WoSo problem. Solutions – any ideas? Yes; did a study of the 2025 Thorns’ injuries. Couldn’t find linkage across all six. Turf the problem? No; four on grass, two on turf. Lots of research, still working, but club and associates have ideas for mitigation and is implementing them (nobody called him in Bixby, tho, so…)

There were some other odds and sods, but that was the gist of it.

Green Shoots in Coachella

Two matches; Angel City FC on Valentine’s Day, and Houston on Saturday the 21st.

Between the pre-early-season form, massive substitution (to get looks at trialists and various formations/matchups), and the lack of result-value I don’t really expect any sort of tactical cohesion or technical nous in these early preseason outings. I’m not looking for either individual brilliance or clever combination play.

What I hope, and hoped, to see were just the overall shape and form of the squad. How did they play in general? Possession, patience, slow buildup? Direct, fast, aggressive? High line? Mid-block? Bunkered up? Anyone look particularly forward in preparation or form? Anyone look behind?

So the first match I just watched for overall impressions. The second I kept track of the squad’s metrics a bit. So things started with…

ACFC v Portland

Here’s my notes from the match:

Ended in a 2-1 ACFC win. Looked to me like Lowdon ran out mostly a sort of 3-4-3 that would turn into a 4-2-3-1 when ACFC was in possession; Fleming and Alidou (I think…) were the sixes, and kind of made a hash of it. The defense in general was such a dog’s breakfast it was hard to pin blame on any individual, though.

An early defensive breakdown gifted the Angels a cheap goal, then slack marking on a corner shipped a second after the break. Portland never really got started going forward, the Thorns goal was at the death and a pure individual effort from some NRI named Lyles who hadn’t done anything of note until then.

For Portland, well…lots of 2025 on display, all things we’d seen a crap-ton of out of Gale. Lack of cohesion and communication going forward, defensive derps, and sloppy giveaways. Nobody really “stood out” unless it was for those things, and I can’t say I saw anyone in Doritos orange look either exceptionally good or exceptionally poor. Lots of the top end of the roster absent, though, so…

(Okay, Arnold made some pretty nice “standing on her head” reaction saves at the end of the first half, but that was after her backline was broken down – again – so “yeah, that’s great, but…”)

It was also only two weeks into the preseason, though, so how much of that was rust, how much was a makeshift roster, how much was bad old Kenball habits? Who knows!? Could be all three.

Then this past weekend came the final tune-up in Indio.

Houston v Portland

Finished in a 1-1 draw, and I kept a bit better track of metrics for this one.

In general I still saw a lot of the KenBall stuff on display against ACFC. Not much real understanding going forward, though the difficulty of inferring too much from this is that “playing under a new coach alongside several new teammates or veteran players playing different roles” is often hard to distinguish from “playing under the coach’s “vibey” “system” that lacks form and shape”.

The result, whatever the reasons, meant an “attack” that lost it’s shape and incisiveness fairly often, and generated little danger outside of individual hero-ball.

The better news was in back, where the shifting 3-4-3/4-2-3-1 we’d seen in the ACFC match looked a bit less makeshift. It included Jessie Fleming and (in succession) Shae Harvey, then Cassandra Bogere, and finally Jenni Immethun at the double pivot when the club dropped back.

The backline (largely Vignola, Perry, Obaze, and Reyes, with McKenzie subbing for Vignola at the half hour before Hiatt and a trialist (Sydney Cheeseman) came on late) looked more composed and less shifty in general as well, though there were still several facepalm moments.

In goal Meissner looked just fine…but remember – this was Houston.

The biggest issue I saw – which matches what we were concerned about after hearing the timelines for Wilson, Weaver, Hanks, and Dufour – was the lack of attacking bite.

But before we get into Portland’s “attack”, let’s mention that Houston was pretty bleh. Most of that was Fabrice Gautrat using this as a let’s-look-at-the-bench-and-NRI opportunity; the starters weren’t on the pitch until the hour or later. So unsuprisingly Houston looked like the pickup side it was for most of the game.

Still, Portland largely sat in a mid-block (at best) and ceded Houston a ton of possession. The Dash moved the ball around at will until the Thorns’ final third, where things broke down. Houston managed five shots all match, of which only one was on frame.

In the first half the Dash generated a decent cross in the 4th minute that Meissner had to hustle to take. Then a long stretch of pretty-much-nothing until Yazmeen Ryan hoofed a long speculative shot in the 38th minute (but right at Meissner), then blasted ten feet over the bar in the 42nd minute.

After the break Makenzey Robbe fired over the bar at 55′, then a long stretch of possession-without-purpose (helped by generally solid Portland defending) until NRI-garbage-time.

Houston generated a total of about 0.29xG from their shots ; 0.12xG in the first half on two shots, 0.17xG from three shots in the second.. Post-shot xG was, obviously much lower, about 0.05. Frankly, about what you’d expect from this lineup.

Okay, now…Portland.

Portland’s first half was, if anything, less coherent and dangerous than Houston’s. The first Portland shot came in the 42nd minute when Fleming lobbed a rainbow that Jane Campbell caught easily. Rookie Maddie Padelski had a shot blocked in the 45th minute. Two shots (xG 0.1), one on frame (PSxG 0.03).

Turnovers – and, remember, unforced turnovers were a real problem last season – didn’t help; a total of 20 in the first half, including some real hairballs. At the edge of the area Obaze passed directly to a sky-blue shirt in the 5th minute; fortunately the defense closed up and Houston turned back over. Castellanos and Padelski had back-to-back attack-killing turnovers in the 21st minute. A Bogere turnover led directly to the first Houston shot-on-goal (Ryan’s in the 38th minute).

The second half was better; only 13 turnovers, and none as immediately damaging as any of the first half giveaways.

The Thorns attack was a bit better after intermission, too. Only a bit, mind.

Farrah Walters, who had been invisible most of the first half, came alive and made several promising runs. Several Portland players had a go; Castellanos (and boy howdy will we get there..!), Walters, and Pietra Tordin, who subbed on at halftime and whose fierce 85th minute run produced the best single Portland opportunity of the afternoon (0.34xG), a point-blank shot that Houston reserve keeper Carolyn DeLisle did well to block away.

Taken in all, Portland generated 5 shots, 2 on frame, total xG 0.54, and…both goals.

Which were 1) about sixty seconds apart, and 2) the weirdest, most freakishly bizarre goals imaginable.

The Houston “goal” came off a Leah Klenke cross in the 66th minute. It wasn’t a bad cross, but the target – Robbe, I think – was pretty well marked and the ball shouldn’t have been much trouble. It skipped off Robbe’s head, though, right across the goal onto Obaze’s noggin, from there looped up and under the crossbar. Meissner had no chance and it was 1-0, Houston.

For about forty seconds.

Because somehow – I think direct from the kickoff – Castellanos lofted a half-court volley that flew over DeLisle’s head and, as our announcer put it, tickled the twine in the Houston goal, 1-1 and that was that for scoring.

As was utterly unsurprising for these amateur-hour streams the camera had cut away to show the Houston celebration and then a replay of the own-goal and so we completely missed seeing the shot. The Thorns public affairs people had some fun with that:

Cute. Wish I’d seen what the hell Castellanos had seen, though.

Other than Castellanos possibly using up all her goalscoring mojo for 2026 I wouldn’t say any Thorn really jumped out for me, good or ill. Padelski had a couple of nice runs, as did Walters. Tordin had the good chance we mentioned. Bogere looked decent. Alidou worked hard but still lacks bite, and Fleming did a lot of the “works hard but somehow seems off-script with everyone else” thing she was doing through midseason last year.

Again, it’s important not to infer too much from these early preseason outings. I suspect that this squad will look very different on opening day that they did in Indio.

How different will depend on a lot of variables, the most important being the vision of the next head coach.

And until we have that name, we won’t really know what that difference can or will be.

One more tuneup, a friendly with Monterey in the first week of March.

I’ll be back here after that with some final preseason thoughts.