Economics of MLS Allocation Assets – Pt 2

In this one I summarize the last post’s conclusions (part 1), expand further from there, look at some data on TAM price inflation, and then draw what I believe to be a very important conclusion re: how best to use allocation money for clubs in an inflationary environment (TAM-related).

Quickly revisiting Pt 1 plus some knock-ons

In the last post I wandered through some scenarios in an attempt to understand the best and worst uses of the league’s complex fiat currencies: General Allocation Money (GAM) and Targeted Allocation Money (TAM).

I ultimately concluded that GAM and TAM are best used via the action that destroys them forever: the buying down of player salaries via centralized league funds and/or the buying down of a transfer fee for an imported player via centralized league funds. Essentially, every dollar of GAM or TAM in your possession is a way to increase your team’s competitive position relative to the rest of the league (by carrying a higher wage bill than is otherwise allowed under the league’s complex roster rules). So any transaction that sends GAM or TAM to another team within MLS rather than the aforementioned transactions which destroys/uses the GAM/TAM is a transaction that lowers your team’s potential wages relative to the rest of the league’s potential wages (all things equal). As an example, and as a first order, trading GAM/TAM assets to another MLS team in exchange for a player’s current contract with said team is at face value an inefficient way to optimize your team’s competitive position, in that you are increasing the other team’s total potential wages and decreasing your own team’s potential total wages. In the last article I posited that the only scenario in which a trade might make sense would be if the player’s current contract is “favorable” (e.g. player is good enough to make $250K/year, but is making $100K/year and has time remaining left on the contract). But ultimately, I concluded that because the market for MLS caliber players is much larger than just the sum of all current MLS players, it follows that the GAM/TAM that is sent in this scenario to acquire a favorable player contract from another MLS team could just as easy be used to “buy down” a portion of a “market value” contract for a player transferring in from overseas to where the net effect might be the same hit to the salary budget charge, with the added bonus of not increasing your opponents’ total potential wages relative to your own.

Some things I did not mention in the last article but that I think are worth mentioning:

  • The argument that the total pool of MLS caliber players is much larger than the current MLS player pool is dependent upon a team’s availability to information on players in this larger pool. Information on MLS players is naturally more available to a team than it is for foreign players in other leagues. As such, the total pool of MLS caliber players is only significantly larger to a team than the current MLS player pool if the team is willing to spend real money on scouting and analytics, things which close the information gap for MLS players vs import players. It follows that the decision point between trading GAM/TAM to another MLS team in exchange for a player you have easily available information on versus using GAM/TAM to sign a similar player from another league might come down to a tradeoff between 1) spending league money (no incremental cost to owner) accompanied by lowering your team’s wage bill relative to other teams to acquire a player and 2) spending real money (incremental cost to owner) on scouting and analytics so that the team can maintain a higher wage bill relative to other teams to acquire a player. Ultimately, this suggests club ambition and owner finances come into play as it relates to which strategy a club pursues.
  • Further, stocking one’s team with more international players than other teams have on their rosters comes at a nominal cost: a trade with another team to acquire an additional international slot (above the baseline 8). Historically these slots trade on the “open market” for somewhere in the range of $50K-$70K of allocation money but draft picks can also be used. So it should also follow that trading GAM/TAM assets to another team in exchange for additional international slots might be acceptable in that it frees a team up to not send even more GAM/TAM to other teams in exchange for players. But importantly, it might be more efficient to trade Super Draft picks instead, given the level of uncertainty involved in SuperDraft picks.
  • Additionally, MLS has some strange rules around player discovery which require a nominal amount of allocation money to exchange hands whenever a player is signed by one club but the player has been identified as a discovery player by another club. So allocation money has trade value in these situations.

Other Prickly elements of fiat currency (and thus GAM & TAM): Inflation

Because GAM and TAM are fiat currency, created out of thin air by the central MLS governing body (backed solely by the League itself for the ultimate use of increasing a team’s wage bill above preset limits), the fair market value of a dollar of TAM or GAM has the potential to act erratically, fluctuating based of the actions of the governing MLS body – principally its ability to increase or decrease the supply of TAM or GAM. This may or may not be manifesting itself at the present moment as we witnessed deal after deal at the close of the most recent MLS transfer window involve higher amounts of allocation money than we would’ve previously seen (had these amounts been as transparently reported by the league as they are today). The word on the street is that there is another round of TAM injection coming into the league, and perhaps in addition to this, an added optional TAM purchase options for clubs (spend incremental owner real dollars to acquire incremental TAM dollars used to increase team wage bill legally). And perhaps, what is only speculation by folks like me is confirmed behind closed doors by various MLS owners. If in fact, a new injection of TAM is on the horizon, and importantly, one that is larger than we’ve seen in the past, than we would expect to see some inflation in the going rate of player contracts or other MLS assets as priced in TAM.

Note: Sam Stejskal released this very good piece on TAM inflation as I was writing this piece. He tackles some really interesting wrinkles I did not pick up on, related to wages right around the max charge and inefficiencies in the market there.

Player contracts are messy and hard to value for many reasons, the least of which being we don’t have full access to the number of years left on any given deal. More significantly the fair wage valuation of a player is very subjective. But we do have some theoretically easy to value assets we can look at, to see if inflation is creeping up on allocation money.

Study: Inflation in the GAM/TAM exchange rate for International Slots / Spots

If we look at the market for International Spots, we can see an increasing trend within this season. It’s possible that this is demand-side inflation as teams MUST comply with the roster requirements as the transfer window begins to shut, but I don’t have a mental model to think through it… seems to me like unused IS spots should decline in value as the transfer window comes to an end, just as the teams who need IS spots start to really, really need them…in my mind there’s an equilibrium here, but I may not have it right. Anyhow, assuming that demand-side inflation is minimal, I thought we’d look at the available data of pure play International Spot deals to see if there’s some supply side inflation as the season has progressed. By my count there have been 15 trades involving international spots since the league started disclosing the general terms of trades between its members this year. From December 2016 until now only 7 of these have been straight swaps of international spots for allocation monies. Here they are:IntlSpotInflation

For deals done in the summer months I’ve multiplied the price of the GAM/TAM by two since the team acquiring the international spot is basically only acquiring half a season (or less) worth of it. What we find is that the price of international spots has risen as the season has kicked on. With smaller subleases going for full annual prices this summer, reflected above as increased prices in the chart. It’s a small sample size but I think it’s something. Notably, with the exception of one deal between Atlanta and NYC, these are all GAM deals, which tells us that the inflation is not due to the expiry of the assets themselves (TAM assets which have a shelf life would theoretically lose value as they approach their expiration dates (remember, they die after 4 full transfer windows and so one would expect unused TAM that’s about to expire to be given away freely at the close of a transfer window).

Again, it’s possible this is a natural demand-side phenomenon with teams *needing* to comply with the roster rules in a timely manner and the teams with unused spots sitting back and laughing at them…but again, unused Intl Slots are worth $0, so it’s difficult to prove.

What of it? The Perhaps Very Important Stuff

I suppose the next question though is, what if there’s some inflation in TAM or in GAM due to teams expecting a fresh injection of funds into the league in the coming years? Does it change the conclusions we’ve already reached regarding “good” and “bad” ways to use allocation moneys? What are the broad market impacts of said inflation?

I may have to get into this deeper next time, but I see the impact being completely different for the non-international player market compared to the international player market. There is a basically finite supply of MLS caliber non international players in MLS. Each year some of them retire, some come up through academies or through the SuperDraft — others drop to lower leagues. So my gut is that an increase in TAM injections would be highly inflationary as it relates to non-international player wages (and yes trade fees, if you want to call them that), when we talk about the final use of TAM – which is the paying down of wages and transfer fees to meet cap rules. For the international player market, I think it’s completely different. Remember, TAM & GAM aren’t ever traded outside the league – they don’t exist. They are traded within the league, or they are USED (dead). Will teams looking to buy foreign have more funds to play with (and still comply with roster rules)? Yes. But will this have a huge impact in the global market for footballers? I don’t really think so. The supply is vast. To my eye the implications of this disparity for front offices in MLS is massive. If the price in allocation moneys for a non-international player is inflating but the price in allocation moneys for paying down an international players wages is NOT, it seems obvious that there’s a market inefficiency here that can be translated into a big competitive advantage.

Columbus Crew Vacuuming Up Minnesota United’s Pennies

Let’s take one of these recent trades and use it as an example. The opening assumption here is subjective, which is that Minnesota has overpaid the Columbus Crew for Ethan Finley. Don’t get too hung up on whether you disagree with that. Let’s just follow the math. Minnesota got Finlay (on a salary of $290K a year – is he worth more than that?) in exchange for $425K of total allocation monies ($100K TAM in 2017, $250K TAM in 2018, $75K GAM in 2018) paid to Columbus. If this price reflects the inflation of non-international players denominated in TAM assets because of a looming $2M TAM injection in 2018 — and I believe it does), just think what Columbus can do with these fiat funds on the international market. Because while there’s a finite supply of mid 20s American wingers (and thus his price in TAM is inflated), for that money they can replace him with an international player on $100K more wages per year (if they get him on a free), or they can use allocation money to buy down a transfer fee for a player on similar wages. Put another way, they can sell their asset (Finlay’s player contract) in an inflated fiat currency (TAM) and purchase a better one with a stable global currency ($USD) and then use the TAM to pay down the player’s wages $ for $ (without the inflation). This seems like a bit of arbitrage to me, but please let me know if I’m missing something.

In short, in this new environment of domestic TAM inflation, not only does it continue to make sense for the most ambitiously competitive teams to spend real $ on scouting & analytics and in doing so, maximize their GAM/TAM via *using* it to pay down player salaries rather than trading GAM/TAM, but in addition, it also makes sense to SELL domestic at inflated TAM rates, to then turn around and BUY international and USE TAM to buy down the international players purchased at normal rates.

Bullet points for my working MLS front office manual for a highly ambitious club.

  • Spend GAM/TAM primarily to buy down player wages/foreign transfer fees below roster caps.
  • Do not trade GAM/TAM in exchange for MLS player contracts (lowers overall competitive ability due to relative wages)
  • To achieve the above two bullet points, real investment in scouting and analytics / recruitment departments is important to close the information gap for international player market compared to current MLS player market.
  • In inflationary TAM environment, selling non-internationals (fixed supply) for TAM makes sense to then buy internationals, using the TAM you received to buy down their wages/transfer fees below the caps. (sell high, buy low)
  • Acquiring future international slots now at nominal rates might make sense to achieve the above strategy of exploiting the two separate player markets. If you can trade draft picks to acquire these international spots, do that.

Thoughts?

 

The Economics of GAM and TAM

Trying to figure out how General Allocation Money and Targeted Allocation Money work in Major League Soccer has been an adventure for me.

MLS Salary Budget Rules Overview – skip it if you know it

MLS is a single entity owned jointly by its members – who are owners of the teams competing in the league. All the owners agree (and jointly with the MLS players union) on how much is going to be spent on players in a given season, and then the league sets the rules around roster construction and provides all the teams a specific amount of money to spend based on these rules. There are specifics and then crazy specifics, but as a general rule, it works like this: Each MLS team is made up of 28-29 players, the wages for 20 of which (the senior roster) are governed by the Salary Cap. Each of these 20 players will carry a salary cap charge between the senior minimum ($65K) and the maximum budget charge ($480K), for a total of $3.8M in salary budget. In order for a team to sign a player making more than $480K (or to sign a player by paying a fee + wages greater than $480K), while still making use of these shared League funds (i.e. not opening up the individual team owner’s pocket book), it has to use up some of its “Allocation Money” (also handed out by the League to each of its member teams based on #rules), which comes in two forms: General Allocation Money and Targeted Allocation Money.

General Allocation Money (each team receives $200K of each year +/- amounts triggered by a variety of achievements and/or other events) does not expire and generally doesn’t have any additional restrictions with it. You use it to bring your roster in line with the salary budget when it exceeds it, either for an individual player charge, or more generally for the team’s total budget.

Targeted Allocation Money is like GAM except it can only be used for players making between $480K and $1M, and it is given out in tranches (agreed to on an ad hoc basis by the league, it would seem ) which each expire after 2 transfer windows. A summary of the recent TAM injections are as follows:

  • 2015 – $500K per club
  • 2016 – $800K per club (expires at the end of 2017 season)
  • 2017 – $1.2M per club (expires at the end of 2018 season)

GAM and TAM are tradeable between MLS teams, and GAM and TAM cannot be combined together to pay down any player’s contract or transfer fee.

Importantly, if a team wants to sign a player above the max budget charge of $480K AND it doesn’t want to (or can’t) spend allocation money (GAM or TAM) to “buy the budget charge down to $480K, it can pay for the salary (or transfer fee) in excess of $480K out of its owner’s own pockets (for up to 3 players) and the player’s budget charge would remain the max of $480K. Such players are known as Designated Players. And the budget charge for a designated player can be less than $480K if a player is 23 years of age or younger.

Other Background Reading on the topic from some immortals: Doyle, Stejskal, and I will add some more here.

Edited to add: Somehow I missed linking to Jared Young’s comprehensive CAP review at AmericanSoccerAnalysis, here.

Some Takeaways

So, it’s important to point out that a team does not have to sign any designated players. They can play with “League money” only — let’s call it $5.2M ($3.8M budget + $1.4M in estimated annual allocation money). In fact, 1 of those 3 potential designated player slots costs a team that uses it $150K, which is paid to the League, and then distributed as additional GAM to all teams who do not use up all 3 designated player slots. But most importantly, in light of all of this, if a team does not “use” its allocation money, it should consider it a real economic cost, since it is already paid for. Use it or lose it. Alternatively, it can trade away its allocation monies, potentially operating on a senior roster of wages totalling as low as $3.8M. But my important takeaway from all that is that anything within the $5.2M umbrella is all “MLS Money.” There’s no way to exchange it for outside dollars, and it’s already been paid for (by the league, or by each member contributing the required annual amounts to the league, or however they settle it). To some extent it is a sunk cost. Anything above that $5.2M threshold – the DP money – is real money, real incremental dollars – real economic decisions to be made by a rational club owner.

And given that it’s included in the “MLS money” umbrella, and not in the “outside money” (or “real money”) bucket, GAM and TAM are endlessly interesting to me. I want to explore the question: what is the best (most efficient?) way for an MLS club to use GAM and TAM? As a reminder/checkpoint, here’s what you can do with GAM and TAM.

  • Trade it to another club in exchange for things such as Players, other allocation moneys, International Spots, Draft Picks, Allocation/Waiver Priority.
    • As an example, Orlando City could trade $400K of General Allocation Money and $500K of Targeted Allocation Money to Sporting Kansas City in exchange for the rights to Dom Dwyer’s contract ($680K/year salary with 1-2 years left).
  • “Buy down” a salary budget charge for a DP to below the max charge (and to no lower than $150K)
    • As an example, Atlanta United could sign Chris McCann for $570K and spend $90K of TAM to buy McCann’s budget charge down to $480K (keeping the DP tag off of him).
  • “Buy down” a salary budget charge to no less than half the original charge
  • “Buy down” a transfer fee or loan fee so that it does not count towards your salary budget (either at an individual level or a team level.
    • As an example a team could pay a $500K transfer fee to foreign club for a player on $400K/year in wages. The team could spend $500K in TAM or GAM to eliminate the transfer fee from being included in the team’s salary budget.

Fiat Money

It’s important to point out that for the purposes of understanding how GAM and TAM function in MLS, both types of asset are what’s known as “fiat currency” — currency whose value is backed solely by the entity that issues it. In other words it is Monopoly money. It is both created and destroyed by MLS. It has value to MLS teams because MLS is the league they compete in and it is used to subsidize MLS salary caps. Under no circumstances could TAM or GAM be sent to a team outside of MLS; they simply would not accept it. It doesn’t exist. When MLS creates new TAM, it simply decrees that TAM has been created and it can destroy it as well.

Since TAM and GAM are fiat, it is also true that in only 1 of the above 4 uses of allocation money, does the allocation money survive the transaction (if it is traded). If it is spent buying down salary budget charges or buying down a transfer fee, it disappears into the ether, decreasing the overall aggregate supply of allocation money in the league. Allocation money can exchange hands in MLS, but its final resting place — its ultimate purpose is to be destroyed/spent in exchange for a given MLS team being granted the ability to invest slightly more into its senior roster than otherwise is permitted. Further, TAM will even die of old age if it is not destroyed within 4 transfer windows (a 2 year shelf life).

With this in mind, I have a hunch about how allocation money is best used, and how it’s not. Let’s do some accounting homework.

Scenario Analysis

MLS Team A needs a striker, and they’re considering two potential options.

Option A:  Striker John Doe, 26 years old from the Championship in England. He can be signed by paying his current club a $1.6M transfer fee and he wants a contract worth $400K per year. To comply with MLS roster rules and not make John a designated player (i.e. not spend any outside “real money” but just “MLS money”), MLS Team A would need to spend (send to MLS HQ) $1.6M in allocation money to eliminate the transfer fee from the budget, so they can sign him and slot his $400K of wages into the $5.2M-ish MLS budget.

Option B: Striker Dom Doe, 26 years old and currently on MLS Team B’s roster. He can be traded for by paying his club $400K of GAM, $1.2M of TAM and he’s on a contract worth $400K per year. MLS Team A would need to send $1.6M of allocation money to MLS Team B, and then Dom Joe would fit into MLS Team A’s senior roster budget just fine ($400K is below the maximum MLS salary budget charge).

Assuming MLS Team A has enough cap room and allocation money to execute either option and assuming John Doe and Dom Doe are of equal talent, health, work ethic, and potential, and that both qualify as international players under MLS rules, which transaction (Option A or Option B) should MLS Team A go through with?

In my mind, the answer is clear, but this might be a controversial opinion, I’m not sure. Under both scenarios, Team A gains the striker, loses $400K of cap space, loses $1.6M of allocation money, and loses 1 free international slot. But if Team A trades for the striker with Team B, they transfer “MLS money” (fiat assets) to a competitor plus the competitor gains $400K of cap room to replace the striker), whereas if Team A buys the striker from England, Team A *uses* the MLS money– they use it up. It is destroyed. It returns to the earth from whence it came, and no other MLS teams can use it to improve their squad. See the difference? Allocation Money’s ultimate use is to be torn up into shreds in exchange for allowing a club to field a more competitive side by increasing the total wage bill without breaking the salary budget rules. You can either *just do it* and sign a player, and comply with the rules by using GAM/TAM to lower your charges, or you can transfer said GAM/TAM to an opponent in order to get your player, and that other team will replace him with A) the salary budget room they just added in his absence + B) the new allocation money which can allow them to pay his replacement even more!

So, why would Team A ever trade MLS Money to another MLS team to acquire the other team’s striker (if the global football market surely provides a supply of similar players that this hypothetical assumes) and if in doing so, they benefit the other team? I can think of one scenario that makes sense, and that’s when the other MLS team has locked up a favorable contract with said player (because MLS is a single entity, contracts do not get ripped up upon trades between its member teams). So if Dom Doe deserves to be paid $650K but he’s making $400K with MLS Team B, and since MLS is a single entity and contracts transfer between teams, MLS Team A might be willing to “pay” for the favorable contract (to get a guy worth $650K but only pay him $400K, and only take a $400K budget charge). Since MLS Team B will be shipping out a player worthy of $650K/year but is only taking a $400K budget charge, they may only be willing to part with the player if they are compensated for the fact that they will have to replace the player worthy of $650K with a player to be paid $400K (to continue compliance with MLS roster rules). So what would the value of this contract be? What might the two teams agree to as a fee? Maybe its $250K multiplied by the remaining years on the contract, maybe its $300K per year (a little extra for the hastle?).

But again, instead of doing this whole thing, can’t Team A simply sign a player from overseas who makes $650K and buy down $250K of the contract with allocation money if they need to fit him into a $400K budget hole? The result seems similar. I suppose it comes down to valuations. If you value the contract higher than the $300K they’re asking for, you do it.

In the end, MLS is unique from other American sports where trading is more frequent. In those sports , virtually the full labor market for a given sport exists under one collective bargaining agreement, and all the players you would want to sign player for teams in your league, your competitors. In MLS, you can sign a player from anywhere in the world, so there is no need to grease the wheels of other MLS teams to acquire their contracts when you can go out and sign your own. The supply of players is nearly infinite but the supply of GAM/TAM is … not, at least not yet?

OK, just going to publish this now. Let me know your thoughts please. I’m 100% certain I got some big stuff wrong in here, but how else will we figure this stuff out, except by trying.

—-

Late Edit after some feedback on Twitter:

Some things that have been pointed out are:

  1. To assume you’ve got an endless supply of replacement players in the global market, you have to account for the real world cost (real $ not MLS $) of hiring scouts, more of them, and better ones, and analytics departments and all sorts of other things that cost real money. Inherent in this is the admission that a player you are familiar with (by way of seeing him in MLS and knowing he can produce at this level) is more valuable than a mystery player. So the tradeoff is basically, you can spend more real world money in order to close that information gap (of a foreign playe relative to an existing MLS player) and hope to maximize your cap room / wage bill relative to the rest of the league’s wages, or you can save the real world money (don’t use it on scouting etc) and use the MLS money (by trading it) to acquire the player you have more info on.
  2. On that point, it has been suggested that a better way to phrase the argument is that by trading GAM/TAM to another MLS team you are actively shrinking your team’s wage bill relative to the wage bill of the rest of the league (all else equal, like say if you take DPs out of it, or assume everyone spends big on DPs).
  3. It was brought up that allocation money is perhaps *more* valuable for lower spending teams who do not plan to spend on DPs, which could create some interesting value disparities and therefore trade opportunities when it’s a big spender dealing with a low spender.

 

 

July 21: Orlando 0 – 1 Atlanta (a return)

Back after a brief hiatus. Thanks for your patience. This one (which I watched from my couch on pins and needles) was fascinating. It felt like a smash and grab in the immediate aftermath, but we’ll investigate to what extent that sentiment is accurate. Let’s just dive right in.

Shots

OCSC outshot Atlanta 13 to 8 and many will tell you they should have won.  Most* expected goals models show something that many would interpret as Atlanta lucky as all hell to leave the state of Florida with any points, let alone all three (here’s one):

11tegen11 race xg
@11tegen11 shows Atlanta producing very few low quality shots in this one. With Orlando creating more, including the 1 very, very big header chance off the set piece (saved by Guzan).

And for good measure, FiveThirtyEight also had the shots-based xG at 1.2 – 0.4 in favor of Orlando. At time of posting ASA’s numbers aren’t up yet, but they’re normally similar.

Here are the shots:

OCSCshots

So, was Atlanta actually lucky and Orlando unlucky? Not so fast. Atlanta is perhaps fortunate that some of the Orlando shots weren’t put on frame, and Atlanta won’t count on a dream strike from Tito every match, but Orlando can always shoot better, and they can close down a striker cutting inside with the ball on his dominant foot. If we’re going to give cosmic credit to teams for shots they would normally expect to put on frame but didn’t (or for close headers that are scored more often than Guzan let them in this game), we should look into giving some credit to attacking moves that are normally converted into high quality shots, but that may not have been (namely those of Atlanta). One such way to accomplish that is to calculate an expected goals value from non-shot events data, and FiveThirtyEight happily includes such an estimate alongside its shots-based expected goals model (check the last row).

538 exG

Taking into consideration some of the more dangerous moments Atlanta created but that did not result in shots shows a more even match, and for my money, that’s the true story of the game (though I do not fully understand everything that goes into their model). The total number of touches in the penalty box and surrounding areas seems similar as well (these coming from whoscored.com).

ATL Touches in the Box

Atlanta may have been lucky to take all 3 points and the teams largely played evenly to a draw, but there’s nothing wrong with taking 3 against a #rival because of a beautiful goal. And no, I do NOT think Orlando have a claim to have outplayed Atlanta on this day. I’ll do my best to make the case for why.

Flow of the Game: Atlanta pressed high. Orlando didn’t.

First off, aside from the first few moments after the whistle and a handful of half-hearted other attempts, Orlando rarely pressed Atlanta’s back line in this game, and they were happy to cede the lion’s share of possession to the away side. Atlanta attempted 63% of all passes attempted in the first half, and 49% in the second, for a combined 57% of passes attempted in the match (aligns with the official possession figure of 55%). See below for a pretty common initial look from Orlando when Atlanta were starting play.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Basically, as we’ve seen several times this year, Atlanta played like the home side, and Orlando looked to absorb and counter, which — look, that’s totally a valid game plan, especially against the Five Stripes as I’ve mentioned before — but when you’re playing at home with this sort of reactive approach, it seems more likely that a weird moment can slide you from a drawing position into a losing one rather than from a winning position into a drawing one (the more likely ‘oops’ that a proactive team like Atlanta should look out for over the second half of the season). To boot, here are the patented Tiotal Football Pressure & Tidiness Stats for the game:

PressureOrlando

What we see here is 1) Orlando generally choosing not to (or failing to) disrupt Atlanta’s buildup play, allowing the away side to start possession calmly and 2) Atlanta not allowing Orlando the same privilege. Remember ATL are averaging 190+ own-half passes and 33 giveaways per game, for something like 7 own-half passes per giveaway. And their opponents are averaging 130, 30, and 4.3 against ATL. In a recent post over at DirtySouthSoccer I had posited that while these averages create a somewhat advantageous equilibrium for the Five Stripes, perhaps there was a slightly higher level they could move to in terms of “tidiness”:

“The question is, is it the equilibrium Tata Martino (and Darren Eales) aim for (?), or is there a possible equilibrium where Atlanta is shaving off a handful of giveaways per game and still maintaining their pressing effectiveness and ball control? Could we see the team average 25 or fewer giveaways per game down the stretch while still turning their opponents over 30+ and forcing the long balls?” (DirtySouthSoccer)

Well, that worked out quite nicely! Here Atlanta are a mere few days after I wrote that piece, putting up a much tidier overall performance while still creating havoc in their opponent’s half (partly due to Orlando not trying much to disrupt). The second half is a bit mediocre from both teams – partly the humidity I expect. Atlanta’s press slowed slightly in the second, though still higher than Orlando’s. But why didn’t the successful Atlanta high press turn into shots, chances, expected goals, goals you might ask? I’m tempted to blame chance in the same way analytics folk often blame chance for conversion rates that might seem too low or too high.

Pressing Moments

To my eye, there were several successful pressing moments that just barely did not come off in terms of creating shots, but on another day they might’ve. To paint a picture, here are just a few I noticed:

  • In the 13th minute, Atlanta press generally pretty well chasing the ball around Orlando’s half, and they create an unsuccessful touch or two, but it’s just barely recovered by Orlando — I might call it luck. In many games the ball bounces the other way and Atlanta are off to the races.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • In the 14th minute, Asad pins Orlando back deep only for the player to narrowly escape him to find a centre back who boots it long, but it is intercepted by LGP well inside Orlando’s half. A 1-2-3 in quick succession nearly finds LGP through on goal for a 1v1 chance. Gressel’s throughball is narrowly caught out. Orlando were almost punished for their loose possession — we were closer than many realize to the game changing drastically this early. But no Atlanta shot was registered.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • In the 40th minute, Atlanta forces a long ball from Bendik, and then immediately presses the wide player causing a terrible back pass and a massive chance for Almiron through on goal, but again no shot is registered because of a desperate retreating slide tackle from OCSC.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

These were just a few I grabbed screens of, but generally speaking Atlanta created a ton of danger for Orlando City in this game from the press that simply wasn’t resolved into a shot in the box score, and therefore had no associated expected goal value, and on and on. Be cautious if you suggest Atlanta were overly fortunate. There was some luck. There normally is. But there was also Atlanta executing their game plan.

Buildup Moments

Given the lack of a high press from Orlando (or the occasional attempt at it), this match was also a nice view into the kinds of buildup patterns Atlanta aim for against what was often two banks of four. I think this is interesting because we are often wondering whether Atlanta can create from buildup play (instead of just from turnovers). And I’ve been obsessed with whether or not Atlanta are improving the tidiness required to play this way. Here are a few key moments that I found illustrative, and buried in here are some very good near chances – more of those kinds of things that don’t show up in the shots/xG totals:

  • In the 2nd minute, Atlanta passes through a fairly high Orlando City position to create a very nice attacking look. This may have been one of the moments that persuaded Orlando not to press high as much.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • In the 15th minute, Atlanta plays the ball forward through their own half largely uncontested, and play really begins with the classic “Asad-tuck-in-Garza-overlap-Almiron-shows-for-the-ball-triangle” (TM). This is Atlanta’s Plan A it seems to me. The buildup culminates with 3 Atlanta attackers narrow moving into the box with Almiron the ball behind them, and Garza and Walkes in plenty of space wide. Then they successfully work the ball into the danger area, but fail to find a shot. Great buildup play on the road in a hostile environment.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • In the 23rd minute, there’s this nice little flick (link to MLS clip) coming from back to front as LGP finds Almiron in space centrally and he plays Asad through nicely.
  • In the 36th minute, we see Plan A again: calm and conservative buildup from the back. Asad tucked in, Garz/Asad/Almiron/Tito combination down the left. Narrowly called offside though I don’t see it. Another one of those very good plays/ very dangerous chancs that doesn’t show up anywhere in the numbers.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • In the 63rd minute, you see another very high quality concept from Atlanta in buildup (similar to the last one). Under basically no pressure from Orlando’s forwards, the Atlanta de facto back 3 is able to rotate the ball around with ease and then Parkhurst can pick out Almiron dropping between the lines. Again, if I’m offered this position, I play it. It didn’t come off but a very nice buildup.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • In the 78th minute, we see Orlando nominally pressing high but with little effectiveness. Atlanta plays the extreme short buildup concept, and Garza makes a safe choice to play direct under a little bit of pressure (denies a giveaway opportunity for Orlando). The ball is headed back to the midway line by Orlando and Atlanta wins the second ball, and look at that final position: 4v2 in the attacking third. Again, another very dangerous situation. Just missing the final ball/move from the away side.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On balance, if you told me I was playing away in a hostile environment and gave me the choice between these types of moments and a couple admittedly good header opportunities off of set pieces, I think I’m taking these — before we even get to Tito’s Level 99 Thunderbolt. Jesus what a goal. I don’t have much to add to that. I think Rob at DirtySouth has some good points about Tito potentially lining up on the left for shots such as this one, and for other reasons.

And that’s basically what I wanted to get across. Shots-based expected goals did not tell the whole story of this one. And oddly, this seems to happen often with this team. It may have felt like a heist in the middle of the night with Guzan’s very nice saves, and Tito’s fireball, and Will Johnson’s miss, but on balance, Atlanta accomplished what they wanted to in the press and in buildup, and occasionally you’ll have games where it’s hard to convert that into end product. It’s the nature of the sport.

Oh, two quick comments on team shape.

First, I thought it was cool to see Jeff Larentowicz in a more pronounced back 3 for most of the game, which is the correct “by-the-book” move against a 2 forward setup from Orlando.

Second, late in the game a fascinating thing happened. Jason Longshore was the first person I saw who mentioned it (on Monday’s SoccerDownHere show). Martino had Atlanta line up in a sort of false 9 4-3-3 type look, with Almiron leading the line, flanked by two more traditional forward type players, Villalba on the left and Vazquez on the right. There were a couple nice moments in this – one was THE GOAL. The other involved Almiron picking the ball up in the half space, dealing it to Walkes wide right and collecting it again for a shot just outside the box. I think this is something to keep an eye on. The only other time I remember seeing something like this was against Toronto where Almiron played centrally flanked by Villalba on the right and Asad on the left. I might like to see this look with Villalba on the left, Martinez on the right, Almiron central, and Asad sitting behind him as the furthest forward in a central midfield triangle.

PACE STANDINGS AS OF 7/26

I’ve described these in further detail over at DirtySouth, but basically because MLS’ schedule is less balanced than a traditional European league, we shouldn’t look at the table “straight” the way we might look at the Premier League table. Once you make some adjustments for games played, and home/away splits, you get a better picture of how teams are actually doing. Atlanta are doing well. See below:

Pace 1: Win away, Draw Away Measuring StickPACE1

PACE 2: Historical MLS Home/Away Average Points Per Game Measuring StickPACE2

 

High Press and Possession – Midseason Review

I put together something over at DirtySouthSoccer summarizing and reviewing all of the pressure/tidiness type stats you might see on this blog all the time. I sort of like how ti turned out. Please check it out here:

https://www.dirtysouthsoccer.com/2017/7/18/15950458/style-of-play-statistical-analysis-atlanta-united-high-press-possession-buildup-tactics

Player Tidiness

A poor excuse for a catch-up post (7-17-17)

Thought I would drop in a few pressure/possession tables for the most recent few games, which I have not covered on the blog at all during a period of absence.

First, the Five Stripes hosted Colorado, winning 1-0 on 1.9-0.8 of shot-based expected goals (ASA).

COL pressure table

Next, the return leg in Columbus, a 2-0 victory compared to 1.2-1.3 xG (ASA).

ATLCLBpressure

And lastly, a weird one against a 10-man San Jose, in which Atlanta won 4-2 on 2.6-1.3 expected goals based on the quality and number of shots.

SanJosepressure

Overall these were some decently unique games in terms of pressure, tidiness, and chance quality. Colorado didn’t even attempt to press Atlanta, and it shows in the above average tidiness figures for the home side. Colorado couldn’t hold onto the ball in their own half, putting up an abysmal pass per giveaway number while generally limiting the damage from lost possessions in their own half. Against Columbus, Atlanta actually sat back slightly (partly cuz game state) and hit long over the top with some success. We’ll look back on this one as a very rare gem, I’d imagine, for a number of reasons even if they couldn’t limit the giveaways against a pressing Crew FC. And then against San Jose, the first half press numbers are interesting as San Jose gave as much as they got. But the second half went as one would expect with the Earthquakes down a man. Atlanta barely spent time in its own half, and simply did not turn the ball over back there. Atlanta’s pressure on San Jose in the second was impressive.

Atlanta’s averaging 7 own-half passes per giveaway compared to their opponents’ 4.3. That 4.3 number feels about right for a high pressing side. We’ll see if that 7 budges going forward.

Atlanta continue to “run hot” against the expected goals models. I put up a poll asking whether we thought Atlanta’s results would continue over the second half of the season at their current GD per game pace (+0.5) or decline somewhat towards their expected goal difference per game of (-0.3). It was unanimous for the former, which I found interesting. But everyone seems right at the moment…

There will likely be something from me on DirtySouthSoccer.com this week. Be on the lookout.

June 17: Atlanta 3 – 1 Columbus

The first thing I noticed when the whistle blew at Bobby Dodd Stadium on Saturday was that Columbus did not press high against Atlanta’s centre backs when they had the ball. They were more restrained, generally blocked passing lanes into midfield and waited to engage the press until the ball crossed the halfway line. This shows up in Atlanta’s “tidiness” stats (also known as the CLB pressing stats).

ATL TidinessWhile you may remember 2 or 3 cringe-worthy passes from the back line, with Columbus hanging back a bit, most of these passes were intercepted in the attacking half with the Crew daring Parkhurst and Pirez to pass their way across the line of engagement, and so they don’t show up in the “own-half” stats. What you can see is Atlanta passing in their own half at a level of comfort rarely seen this season, occasionally turning the ball over  via unsuccessful touches and dispossessions but at a very low rate (every 12+ passes). Atlanta also had around 60% possession in the first half. So in summary, CLB sat back to some extent, happy for Atlanta to pass the ball around in their own half.

Columbus is a very technically  capable team and came into this match playing the highest percentage of short passes of any team in MLS (11%). In the first half against Atlanta they were slightly more direct (16% long) partly due to sitting back some, but were still caught out in their own half at a very high rate, and not coincidentally the same rate of disruption that Atlanta usually causes its opponents (a giveaway for every 4-5 own-half passes).CLB Tidiness This sort of disruption in Atlanta’s attacking half created the first goal with Asad tackling and assisting Villalba in one very nice move followed by a piggy-back ride to the corner flag. It was mirrored at the end of the game with Kratz and Martinez.

If you look back at the charts, you can also see a lot changed in the second half. Columbus came out ready to press Atlanta further forward, and Atlanta in turn played more directly, perhaps out of necessity, or perhaps tactically, as is suggested here. It’s difficult for me to be able to tell which side is driving this, and which side is reacting, but it’s definitely there. I should also point out that perhaps Columbus played more directly in the first half as a reaction to Atlanta’s pressing and not just purely as part of a game plan. One thing that is unmistakable is the difference in Kann’s passing from the first to second half. My guess is that this aspect of the shift in passing is purposeful.

Check out the defensive action charts below to see Atlanta pressing high in both halves and Columbus drawing the line of engagement at the center circle in the first, and venturing further forward slightly in the second. Also check out those left flanks under siege (more on this later).

Here’s a new chart. The entire season to date of own-half passes per giveaway for Atlanta (blue line) and Atlanta’s opponents (red line). Remember higher numbers are good as you’re passing the ball more times before giving it away in your own half:

PPG over time ATL

Atlanta presses persistently and with purpose (see how stable the red line is) as their opponents’ “tidiness” rarely if ever veers too far away from the average 4-5 passes per giveaway range. Atlanta’s tidiness on the other hand fluctuates more significantly from match to match. Since these statistics are time consuming for someone like me to capture, I mostly just have them for Atlanta matches, so I’m not sure if this sort of thing rings true for most teams (i.e. that a team’s tidiness is dictated by it’s opponent’s press and not the other way around), or if this is something that fits Atlanta uniquely. It’s interestingly nonetheless. This chart suggests a team can manage its total giveaways against Atlanta by refusing to pass in its own half (route one style) fairly easily, but it has less control over the rate at which it gives the ball away when passing in its own half. The calculus comes down to how well does your possession suppress the quantity of your opponent’s shots and does this compensate enough for the quality of chance you will ultimately give up on occasion, trying to pass through a press.

Chances and stuff

Take a click through the usual data bits from @11tegen11. I think the expected goals stuff is pretty fair this week with both teams creating huge chances in the first half, and each side converting one such chance. Kann was massive for Atlanta and kept the game winnable going into halftime as Columbus found a couple really pretty through balls in behind Atlanta’s back line that set up very good shooting opportunities. The second half was more a game of attacking moves that ended just short of shots being taken or shots being taken from outside the box (perhaps the ultimate example of this is Kratz splitting the centre backs to find Martinez running at the keeper — I couldn’t have been the only one thinking we were about to see another keeper rounded).

Here are the attacking “chances” broken down by half (chalkboards from MLSSoccer boxscores).

Interesting that the first half was basically both teams attacking their opponent’s left flank. I don’t have a lot more to say in terms of the chances. This game was interesting from a style of play and tactical perspective, and then for the pure brilliance that a fatigued Almiron showed on his quick strike counter goal. And then as a fan, I was amazed as always by Yamil Asad — his pressing, his movement into space off the ball, his chance creation, and his general effort level. He’s leading the league in assists (proper assists not hockey assists) with 8. DP level stuff. I’ll stop here with the objective-ish analysis because there are so many games coming up, and these posts aren’t exactly evergreen anyhow 🙂

Biased Reaction

Here’s a quick comment as a fan. This was a massive win for Atlanta. First and foremost, at the moment the team is competing with Columbus for a playoff spot. Any eastern conference home game is crucial, but against these guys it’s sweeter, and Columbus is a good team despite their recent run of form. It was clear they were technically proficient, and generally well balanced, significantly talented in Meram, Higuain, and Kamara and the tactics seemed fine. The Crew could’ve been up 2-0 or 3-1 at half, and if that’s the case, we generally know how those games go for Atlanta. So it’s certainly important to reflect on Atlanta’s good fortune — how what could’ve been a demoralizing home loss to cap a 3 game losing streak is instead a statement win against a “rival,”– but the great thing about soccer is as soon as you’re done reflecting on that, you get to think about the individual acts of brilliance from Kann, Almiron, Asad, and Larentowicz, oh and Josef Martinez, and no one can take those 3 points away. This tension between underlying performance and results, which is rare in most sports, can be brutal at times and sublime at others.

Standings

And here are the current PACE tables heading into Wednesday night. The first a measure of each team’s performance against the win at home, draw away rule. The second, a measure of each team’s performance against the average MLS team’s home and away splits multiplied times each team’s composition of home and away matches played to date. They both suggest the same thing, that Atlanta is squarely in playoff contention, not chasing like the 7th place that the official table will lie to you about.

Pace1Pace2

Also, you guys should really listen to the Beta Band more. Smh.

 

June 10: Chicago 2 – 0 Atlanta

Dig the Long Ball

Coming into this match, Chicago were playing 15% of their passes long, which put them in the top third of the league in terms of short passing (Crew & Sounders ‘lead’ at 12%). Against Atlanta, the Fire played 25% of their passes long at home, and often successfully over the top of Atlanta’s isolated centre back(s). For reference, the highest long pass average in the league is Vancouver at 20% who coincidentally also upped the long balls above their season average against Atlanta (and won at home). Before that, New York City stubbornly did not increase their long ball usage, and were wiped out at Bobby Dodd Stadium. But before that, NYCFC played longer in Yankee Stadium (home) against Atlanta and succeeded. Between those two matches, Portland played significantly more long balls than their season average and managed a point (with a potentially missed offside call) at home.

See what I’m getting at? Like I said last week, with Atlanta coming to town, teams have a choice to make around how they progress the ball into their opponent’s half, and the correct choice seems clear. Playing short means Atlanta will create good chances off turnovers. Playing long means you minimize that problem plus you may even create something nice yourself.

I don’t want to be too presumptuous with the causality. The guy who watches one team and is bad with data is the king of small sample sizes. The above matches could be a coincidence. Or, higher percentages of long balls might be a symptom of game state, that is to say teams that are leading hit the ball long more and more as the match progresses (although there are some pretty good teams at the top of the short passes table). I’d love to see a broader analysis of which teams drive other teams to deviate away from their general trends. Is it a complement to Atlanta that each team they face is shifting it’s style of play significantly? Or is it evidence of a glaring weakness that’s easily exploited with just a few days of game film preparation? Anyhow, I’d love to see a statistical approach to examining which teams drive change, and which ones their opponents historically may just play straight based on style preferences and goals.

I should say also, as we segue back into the match, that Chicago were more clever and complex than simply playing route one against Atlanta. They mixed in their fair share of nice build-up, pressing, long countering balls, and just general balance in a way that seems to have optimized the result once the game state was on their side. Here’s are @11tegen11‘s pass maps for the match. Chicago’s is interesting.

11tegen11CHI
Chicago with lots of conservative passing and a few repeated long paths towards goal. For Atlanta, this looks like the usual very aggressive positioning, but you’d love to see some links to Tito up top. For what it’s worth, there were countless times where he made great runs to split the centre backs but was rarely rewarded with a throughball.

Own-half Possession & Pressing

Atlanta came out pressing high (surprise, surprise). Chicago picked their spots to press — waited for vulnerable moments, like if an Atlanta defender turned back towards his own goal with the ball. Chicago were successful in turning Atlanta over at times in their own half at the beginning of the game, but dropped off some late as they played with the lead.PressureGame

Atlanta, for their part created right around the exact number of turnovers they’ve forced of their opponents on average this season, both on a pass per giveaway basis (4+), and also in total (32). Here’s the full table (w/ 11tegen11 xG subbed in for the latest match instead of ASA’s numbers):PressureTable

In one such play, Garza slid in and won the ball back and laid off to Tito who shot wide, one of the better chances of the match for United. Chicago’s chances on the other hand came less from pressure in Atlanta’s half, and more from opportunistically exploiting the aggressive Atlanta positioning. With both fullbacks high, and at times a bombing Michael Parkhurst flying up the middle, Chicago played balls over the top several times, mostly catching Atlanta out.

Goal Focus 😦

For the goal that changed the game, in a comedic turn of events LGP and Parkhurst are passing each other like strangers on a cross walk when we join live, LGP having gone on his tour of the attacking half, and Parkhurst beginning his ill-fated voyage with the ball.

CHI GOAL AWhile this was  fun for a second (like the last time Parkhurst did this), it was a poor choice. You can see the general structure of the team completely broken with Parkhurst dribbling into trouble even with 5 or so Atlanta players open for a pass at this point. In the mean time, Pirez, now making his way back to position, has no centre back partner but is tasked with containing Chicago’s 2 most dangerous attackers.CHI GOAL BOnce Parkhurst is dispossessed, it’s kind of over.CHI GOAL D

Chances

I should mention that while Chicago did have the better of the chances in the first half, they were by no means dominant. @11tegen11 shows Chicago with a modest lead at the half, almost all of Chicago’s total (something like 0.8?) coming from the chance they scored. Tito’s 1v1 chance off the odd Gressel sideline clearance/lob makes up the bulk of Atlanta’s total at half (which looks like something slightly higher than 0.5 goals). That number in and of itself should tell you something about how harsh you should be towards Tito for the miss. On average that chance is converted a little less than half of the time (a fantastic chance, as good as you’ll find really, but not one that’s converted 100% of the time – it’s just the nature of the sport). Anyhow, here are the chance maps for the two teams at the half:

To the eye, it’s an intriguing half of football. Atlanta controlled the game and had the volume of chances — many of which don’t show up as shots in the stats because they were narrowly snuffed out. There are plenty of crosses from the right with Gressel/Mears, and more lively action from the left with Garza/Asad. There’s a great ball played in from Kratz off a long set piece before the half that doesn’t connect, and a Pirez header from the spot. What I’m getting at is that while the goal changed the game, Atlanta’s attack didn’t look inept to me, by any means, despite Almiron and Martinez not playing. Chicago had many such almost shot type chances as well, narrowly cleared by defenders.

In the second half, Chicago managed the game state very well. They are a good team I’m afraid to say. In general, they never lost their balance between attack and defense:

Lots of crosses for Atlanta in the second as Chicago appropriately managed the lead and extended the lead off of a corner kick originating from a great piece of build up play where Kann made an outstanding save. It’s hard to break a team down who’s leading, smart,  and dangerous on the counter. Atlanta’s learning that the hard way this year, but not really applying it to situations when they have the lead — they’d rather maintain the aggression and take risks.

The continued question of where the goals will come from if not through transition

I’ll continue this discussion from last week. There’s a growing concern that if in any given game, Atlanta aren’t converting transition chances, or aren’t getting said chances because a team is bunkering, or a team is “managing the game well” with a lead, then Atlanta won’t be able to generate goals through possession and buildup. And in response, my basic theory is that very few teams can count on calm buildup type goals that aren’t transitions or set pieces (another story altogether with ATL) — certainly no team in MLS. I have a thought experiment. Think of the last five or so soccer matches you’ve watched. For me it’s CHI-ATL (transition goals + set pieces), MEX-USA (transition goals), USA-T&T (transition goals), VAN-ATL (set pieces, 1 ATL buildup goal), ATL-NYC (1 transition goal, 2 ATL buildup goals). So in this span, 3 out of the 5 matches had no “normal possession goals” and the two that did featured Atlanta. My hypothesis remains that no team can count on possession/build-up-created goals as it’s “bread and butter.” The other ways to score are much more common. Possession/buildup (if executed correctly) is first and foremost (at least in a league like MLS) a tool to control the game and minimize the amount of time your opponent has the ball. And it comes with risks. It’s just the futile act of watching your team chase a game down 2 goals that makes you feel like they’re lacking in ideas or unable to break teams down. It happens to the best of us, but from what I’ve seen, Atlanta has the skill/talent/tactics to create the odd possession-based goal from scratch, and “occasionally” is a good enough rate for this in my book. Set pieces are maybe a problem? I’m not sure. I defended the short corners last week, and I think there were some shots created off corners this week, but pretty soon I’ll be out of defenses for the zero set piece goals created. Oh, and while we’re at it, it occurs to me that Atlanta hardly ever draws fouls just outside the box, where some of the more dangerous set pieces are taken. For a team with dynamic dribbles and quick speedsters, where are the set piece opportunities? Something to keep an eye on. One would imagine Almiron and Asad would be drawing fouls just outside the box often.

That thing Mears does

That all being said, if we are to take a deep dive into some possession/buildup stuff…I know I’m not the only one bothered when the ball is switched over to Tyrone Mears, only for everything to halt and as the defense shifts back into place before the ball is played back to Parkhurst. My game notes from the last several matches are filled with stuff like “ball is switched to Mears, who plays back to Parkhurst.” I stared at a couple of these instances from this week’s game. My immediate reaction is always that Mears is too slow, or timid, or too right-footed, and he’s ruining these possession for us. But as I watch these sequences over, I’m just not sure what’s going on. It’s clear that Garza/Asad have something nice going on over on the other flank that Mears hasn’t found with Villalba or Gressel, and so my inittal thought was that Mears has trouble finding those square passes into the advanced midfielders that he’s overlapping (say a Gressel, or an Almiron or Kratz). But here are some screenshots from one such sequence on Saturday, and maybe you can help me figure out who’s to blame (I mean it, it’s not clear to me really):Mears15aComments after all the pics.Mears15bMears15cMears15e

It looks to me like maybe at the beginning he’s too hesitant to keep driving forward (there’s still some space in front of him, and everyone is moving forward), but he’s also looking for someone to pop into some space and no one does — they just keep running. Further, he has to be pretty cautious about trying to take on a defender or take more space, given how many red shirts are in nice spots in the center circle area should he turn it over (with Garza also wide and high on the left). Then he stops the ball (the trademark Mears move it feels like), and every single player makes the exact same come back to the ball type move (or they’re stationary), except Kratz who does a clever little but perhaps overly nuanced overlap? So it’s unclear if Mears misses his chance to play someone through, or if no one is able to find actual space. Ideally you want someone running in behind and someone dropping in front of the centre backs, and someone else showing for theball in midfield etc etc.

My solution would be for when Almiron returns, for him to make a more concerted effort to not drop back into midfield to start play, and instead to remain high tucked between the lines, and then importantly, to commit to coming across field when the ball is switched to Mears. I would be OK with Mears playing a ball slightly forward and into Almiron’s feet with a higher risk for a turnover, if perhaps there was more cover deeper to handle a counter — maybe Garza drops back with purpose when the ball is switched? It’s all quite difficult to understand — that’s the game I suppose.

Let me know your thoughts.