Toot Toot

By Harrison Crow (@harrison_crow)

I don't mean to toot our own horn, but *ahem* toot toot.

If you haven't seen it, Devin Pleuler--MLS Soccer's own 'The Central Winger' and Opta analyst extraordinaire--wrote a nice little piece about Bradley Wright-Phillips and his current goal scoring pace. Pleuler explored the idea of whether or not BWP had the potential to break the MLS single season goal record. It's an interesting theory and actually one that I had been playing with writing...until my thunder was stolen from me.

Really, I have no hard feelings. Devin is a much better writer and way more qualified to speak to the situation than someone like myself that simply fools around with this on the side. However, something that came about in a weird occurrence of serendipity. Devin gave us a brief, albeit important, peek behind the Opta curtain. Something nerds like me covet.

Opta has much more data at their disposal than we do. Honestly, it's something that consistently frustrates all of us here at ASA. We wish we had more opportunity to give you better information than what we do. However, in this moment of transparency we see that our idea of expected goals is really not that much different from that of Opta.

In the article, Opta provides data for Bradley Wright-Phillips' current campaign through the eyes of expected goals. Their Expected Goals (0.201 vs our 0.209 per shot attempt) closely mirrors that of what we produce here at American Soccer Analysis. This isn't me declaring that we now have proof that "we are doing something right." Just because Opta does it doesn't make it the correct way to do something. This is only an observation that someone else does something similar to how we do it, and they came to the same conclusions. And maybe I feel that also gives us a hint of legitimacy, but mostly that thing about how we aren't alone in our conclusions. Yeah.

In some way I guess we both make sausage the same way. Obviously, it's very likely there are differences between the two conclusions. I mean, they are different numbers. Duh. But seeing as we won't ever see how exactly they make their sausage, the idea is that we have a similar model. From what I understand, seeing how sausage is made takes away from the enjoyment of eating it. And I certainly don't want to take away that joy from some. I guess that this is just my way of saying whether you buy their sausage or take advantage of ours--which is free--you're getting a fine product.

I think that was far too much talk of our sausages.
 

Converting chances: MLS versus the World Cup

By Matthias Kullowatz (@MattyAnselmo)

Throughout the World Cup, we kept shot data here at ASA for all 64 games. When we converted that data into Expected Goals output, we had to use our MLS data from 2013 and 2014 to estimate shot values. At first, I assumed that MLS finishing rates would be a crude estimate for those of the World Cup. However, despite a post-expansion record 171 total goals this past Cup, the finishing rates lined up surprisingly well with those from the United States' first division.

The widest paintbrush shows that overall finishing rates in MLS (10.1% +/- 0.5%) are actually slightly higher than those in the 2014 World Cup (9.8% +/- 1.4%), though not by a statistically significant margin (p-value = 0.66). Our Expected Goals model was a shade on the other side, with World Cup players scoring 166 non-own goals* versus the 159 goals that our MLS model estimates should have been scored. This discrepancy is because World Cup players were forced to take more shots from at least 24 yards away (zone 5), lowering their expected goals output while also lowering their finishing rate.

Location Frequencies

Location	MLSlocations	WClocations
1	0.054	0.060
2	0.304	0.263
3	0.180	0.174
4	0.209	0.160
5	0.237	0.316
6	0.017	0.027

If we delve deeper, we see that there are no statistically significant differences in any of the six zones, or by headed versus kicked shots. The chart below shows finishing rates (MLSpct and WCpct) broken down by location and body part. P-values are based on two-sample proportions tests.

Finishing Rates Foot

Location	Part	MLSshots	WCshots	MLSPct	WCpct	Pvalue
1	Foot	363	54	0.391	0.407	0.820
1	Head	300	47	0.193	0.234	0.516
2	Foot	2155	241	0.246	0.274	0.342
2	Head	1556	204	0.086	0.093	0.738
3	Foot	2059	274	0.070	0.088	0.303
3	Head	135	20	0.052	0.050	0.972
4	Foot	2520	270	0.052	0.030	0.104
5	2894	534	0.023	0.024	0.867
6	Foot	206	45	0.039	0.000	0.179

MLS players are able to finish at the same rates as World Cup players, but why? I presume that World Cup players are better than those of MLS, but as best we can measure, it doesn't have anything to do with shot placement. An MLS model that accounts for goal mouth placement estimates that World Cup players should have scored 166 goals, which is exactly what they scored and not much more than the original estimate of 159. 

Obviously, there are two sides to a shot: the guy trying to score it and the guy(s) trying to keep it from being scored. What our model doesn't take into account is what's probably the culprit for such similar finishing numbers. We can't control for proximity of the defender---defensive pressure on the shot---or the pace on the shot. MLS games may include a lot more chances like those Germany got against Brazil, mitigating the differences in offensive talent. Additionally, World Cup shooters could drive the ball harder at keepers that are more prepared to stop it, an effect that would again cancel out before we ever saw it in our data.

What I do know for sure is that World Cup teams scored 2.59 offensive goals per game, and MLS teams have scored 2.59 offensive goals per game. If you like goals, MLS is likely to produce just as many.

*There were five own goals during the World Cup that are not included in the shot analysis.

My MLS All-star team with a twist

By Jacob B (@MLSAtheist)

It’s that time of summer again: voting for Major League Soccer’s All-Star game concludes tomorrow (last chance link) for the game that will take place in a few weeks in Portland. For the tenth consecutive season, the MLS All-Stars will face off with a club team opponent from overseas; in this case, German superpower Bayern Munich. The conventional wisdom behind this format for the All-Star game is pretty simple: in an American sports market dominated by other sports, getting soccer’s biggest names possible will help draw eyes to MLS. For soccer fans in the US, many of the game’s biggest names, personas and reputations still reside in Europe. But is this really the best format for Major League Soccer’s midseason spectacle?

For the value of my two cents, the answer is no. There are a lot of reasons that American soccer has outgrown the value of the big named Euro-club All-Star opponent, but I think this is an area that MLS had right way back in 2002. That year the MLS All-Star game took place in early August (as it will this year), and the MLS All-Star side took on a United States national team that was fresh off its best World Cup finish in the modern era. To be honest, I have approximately zero recollection of this game, so I couldn’t tell you if it was a success. But if MLS and US Soccer had the foresight to try the same thing in 2014, I’d bet my life that it’d be a bigger success than the current format.

There are plenty of reasons that people argue MLS has outgrown the current European guest club All-Star format. Attendance around the league has grown healthily for years, and filling seats at an All-Star event where the league picks the most attractive city possible is hardly a prohibitive challenge anymore. Whether the league plays East vs. West or American vs. World or All-Stars vs. Bayern Munich, you can bet that Portland's Providence Park will be sold out for the main event.

A more compelling argument is that of TV viewership: a clear hot button issue that the league still needs to continue improving. I’ll readily admit that a lot of casual sports fans are probably more likely to watch Bayern Munich play than some of the MLS stars that aren’t household names. But if you replaced Bayern with the United States national team? I think I need only direct you to the huge ratings and watch parties that US World Cup games got last month to say that this format would hardly lose TV ratings. In fact, I’d wager a guess that more people would tune in to watch the 2014 World Cup team’s last gasp in an exhibition than the reigning German champion that has almost no ties to the States. The commercials would’ve written themselves during and after the USMNT’s cup run ended: “The US’s run may have been ended by Belgium, but you can still see them one more time this summer! The 2014 MLS All-Star Game, presented by AT&T.”

There’s one more particularly compelling reason that my proposed All-Star format bests the current one: it gets more guys involved. The current format involves selecting one All-Star squad: in a bizarre method, 32 All-Stars are actually selected but only 22 make the game-day roster and get the chance to participate. With my proposal, 10 MLS players would already be in the Jurgen Klinsmann’s US squad, leaving an All-Star squad of 22 guys – all of whom would actually have a chance to play in the game. An underrated part of this idea is the number of converging story lines that this game would create: young up-and-coming MLS talent trying to demonstrate to Jurgen Klinsmann that they belong on the national team, roster snubs with a chance to exact some revenge on Klinsi (who could that possibly be?), etc.

Hopefully the above five paragraphs are enough to convince you that MLS should go back in time (no, don’t bring back the tie-breaking shootout) to the 2002 All-Star format. Without too much more delay, I’ll go ahead and tell you who I think should be on this All-Star roster. But first, I have one more rule: every MLS team gets an All-Star. This is a rule straight from Major League Baseball, where even if your team goes 0-87 in the first half of the season, the league picks the best of your motley crew to represent your team at the Midsummer Classic. As a guy who grew up rooting for the perennially dreadful Detroit Tigers, I can vouch for how hilariously awesome it is to see your best player called an All-Star despite a career .253 batting average.

First, a quick reminder of the MLS guys who were on the World Cup team and will play for the US in my All-Star game:

GK Nick Rimando (Real Salt Lake)

DEF DeAndre Yedlin (Seattle Sounders)

DEF Omar Gonzalez (LA Galaxy)

DEF Matt Besler (Sporting Kansas City)

MID Michael Bradley (Toronto FC)

MID Brad Davis (Houston Dynamo)

MID Kyle Beckerman (Real Salt Lake)

MID Graham Zusi (Sporting Kansas City)

FWD Clint Dempsey (Seattle Sounders)

FWD Chris Wondolowski (San Jose Earthquakes)

*Check out their club stats here!

Now, here are my picks for the MLS All-Stars. Remember, my rules state that every team gets at least one guy on the team, so that’s how they’re listed:

Chicago Fire: GK Sean Johnson

Runner-Up: Harrison Shipp

This was the last team I could think of an All-Star candidate for, so I had to pick their goalie. That’s what happens when you tie more than 60% of your games.

Chivas USA: FWD Erick Torres

Runner-Up: Nobody

The guy's been one of the league’s ten best players while playing for one of the three worst teams.

Colorado Rapids: DEF Drew Moor, DEF Chris Klute

Runner-Up: Nobody

Giving this back line two All-Stars might be a stretch, but Moor’s been very good, and every MLS fan would love to see Klute take on the USMNT in hopes that he’ll be on it next time.

Columbus Crew: DEF Michael Parkhurst

Runner-Up: Federico Higuain

Columbus probably doesn’t deserve an All-Star, either. Parkhurst has been his normal steady self and Higuain is so skilled, but the rest of that team just doesn’t do enough to help them.

DC United: DEF Bobby Boswell

Runner-Up: Fabian Espindola

Boswell has been the key to DC’s resurgent defense, and Espindola has been the key to DC’s resurgent attack. Had to go with the defender because United still tends to play a lot of low-scoring games.

FC Dallas: MID Mauro Diaz

Runner-Up: Fabian Castillo

This team goes as Diaz goes – they treaded water while he was injured and hope to creep back up now that he’s healthy. Castillo’s so dangerous, but doesn’t quite have the ability to be a team’s focal point yet.

Houston Dynamo: DEF Corey Ashe

Runner-Up: Nobody

Houston definitely doesn’t deserve an All-Star, but there aren’t many good fullbacks to choose from. Remember when the Dynamo steamrolled New England in the season opener? Feels like decades ago.

LA Galaxy: FWD/MID Landon Donovan

Runner-Up: Juninho

It’s hardly been Donovan’s best year, and he may not be the most deserving Galaxy player, but you know you want to see him play against a Klinsmann-coached USMNT.

Montreal Impact: MID Justin Mapp

Runner-Up: Felipe

Not a whole lot of bright spots in Montreal this year, but Mapp has consistently been one of them, and Felipe has glinted at times.

New England Revolution: MID Lee Nguyen, DEF Andrew Farrell

Runner-Up: Jose Goncalves

Lee Nguyen was the league’s best player during the Revs’ May winning streak, and Farrell has been indispensable filling in at both right back and centerback.

New York Red Bulls: GK Luis Robles

Runner-Up: Bradley Wright-Phillips, Thierry Henry, Lloyd Sam

Tough to pass on the guy leading the league in goals, but he’s been set up for a lotta easy ones by Lloyd Sam and this Henry guy you may have heard of. For my money, Robles has been one of the league’s top keepers all season.

Philadelphia Union: DEF/MID Amobi Okugo

Runner-Up: Maurice Edu

Philadelphia’s the league’s most frustrating team: so much talent and potential, yet so many inexplicably dropped points. Take your pick between Edu and Okugo.

Portland Timbers: MID Diego Valeri

Runner-Up: Darlington Nagbe

Valeri has been on a tear and is almost single-handedly carrying the Timbers out of their drowsy start to the season. Nagbe’s been his usual thrilling self to watch, but Valeri’s that team’s best player.

Real Salt Lake: FWD Joao Plata

Runner-Up: Nat Borchers

Platita has been fantastic in the attack for RSL, especially with the absence of other guys due to injury. If only he could stay healthy, too…

San Jose Earthquakes: MID Shea Salinas

Runner-Up: Nobody

The Quakes have been bad. If nothing else, Salinas can at least still hit a peach of a dead ball.

Seattle Sounders: FWD Obafemi Martins

Runner-Up: Chad Marshall

Shame to have to see him play opposing Deuce instead of with him, but Oba has lived up to his DP tag this year. Chad Marshall sneakily is having another good year as the leader from the back – his health is as important as any player’s in the league.

Sporting Kansas City: MID Benny Feilhaber, DEF Aurelien Collin

Runner-Up: Seth Sinovic, Dom Dwyer

Despite injuries to seemingly every player in powder blue this year, there are plenty of deserving candidates. Collin has kept this ship afloat defensively, and Feilhaber has filled every role Peter Vermes has asked.

Toronto FC: FWD Jermain Defoe

Runner-Up: Nobody

TFC is living up to expectations as sort of a stars-and-scrubs bunch. They’ve played fairly well collectively, but nobody stands out aside from Bradley and Defoe.

Vancouver Whitecaps: MID Pedro Morales

Runner-Up: Matias Laba

So many exciting, speedy attackers that it’s tempting to pick any of them just to see them play one more time: Mattocks, Hurtado, Manneh. But Morales is the guy that makes it all happen, and Laba is the guy who lets Morales make it all happen.

Pick Your Poison: LA Galaxy v Portland Timbers

By Harrison Crow (@harrison_crow)

I heard something last night that made my brain tick. If you tuned in to Wednesday's edition of "The Best Soccer Show," co-host Jared DuBois posed a common "Pick Your Poison" question to his counter-part Jason Davis. The question was simply, "Who would you rather be with half a season still to go, the Portland Timbers or LA Galaxy?"

This is an interesting, thought-provoking question from DuBois. First, you really have to define what your goals are. My thought process is based on each club's positions for an MLS playoff spot. Having dropped out of the US Open Cup, each team can only earn silverware by making the playoffs and winning the MLS Cup.

Rose City is a full 14 points behind their rivals from the north, and that with having played an extra game. LA is in a bit of a different situation. Also trailing by 14 points, the Stars of Hollywood have three games in hand, potentially translating into as many as nine points---just a five-point deficit to the top of the conference. Neither are mathematically eliminated from the Supporters' Shield or first place in the Western Conference, but that is not a probable outcome (especially for the Timbers).

Again, I'm not saying that it's likely that the Galaxy will win three straight and get Seattle in its sights, just simply stating the obvious. The LA Galaxy are in a better table position by virtue of having as many points as Portland with more games left to play. I think the typical thing to say based on their position is that LA is showing their age (or some other thing like that). Most people point to the fact they've been "less dominant" on the attack, likely based on just 19 goals in 14 matches which is good for just 13th (1.32) in goals scored per game. The other hand reveals the Timbers sitting 3rd in MLS with 1.57 goals a match.

Set aside the Champions League competitions at the end of the year and all the travelling that comes with it. Conventional wisdom would tell you that the Timbers are clearly a team that is eventually going to find it's footing and probably make a push for the playoffs.

However, if we ignore that "wisdom" and look at our numbers based on shot locations for and against, LA's Expected Goal Differential (xGD) is the best in MLS (0.62). This makes their second year in a row sitting at the top of our leader board, as they did the same last year (0.65). Despite what everyone's eyes are telling them, the LA Galaxy are still a very good team and one that, for all intents and purposes, could still to be a top-three club in the Western Conference.

On the flip side, our Expected Goals data, especially by even gamestates, betrays Portland. Their -0.57 expected goal differential in even gamestates suggests they are constantly falling behind, and more than that, their opponents are dominating shot locations when the Timbers should be playing competitively. I know it's become vogue to call them "Draw City," and maybe that's fair due to their continuing to spot the opposing team goals early. But that defense has so many leaks and problems that Liam Ridgewell by himself may not be the answer to recover this season.

Yes, there are health reasons that can help to explain some of those troubling results. And it may even be foolish of me to base this opinion on only 18 games with 16 still to play. But I think that---based on Matthias' research from last year about how the first 17 games of xGD is a decent prediction of the future (seen below)---I'm not going out on a very thin branch here.

All things being equal, and if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with LA. Compound the situation with the fact that Portland also has the Champions League that I'm sure they'll want to focus on, and it becomes that much easier of a decision.

Now with Silly Season in full swing, we'll see if changes in LA make me look stupid in the coming months.

Germany finished well, but probably didn't even need to

By Matthias Kullowatz (@Mattyanselmo)

Brazil's embarrassment at the hands of ze Germans set at least one World Cup record for a game this deep into the tournament. And while Germany would not likely score seven more goals given the same chances, it's not as though it lucked its way into the finals.

Devin Pleuler noted via twitter that it was something of an unusual spanking.

For #WorldCup teams scoring at least 4 goals in a single match, today's #GER had the highest Shots/Goals ratio since at least 1966.

— Devin Pleuler (@devinpleuler) July 8, 2014

In other words, it wasn't as "lucky" as other lopsided victories have been in the past.

Our Expected Goals model probably undervalues Germany's performance because we can't control for the proximity of defenders or the time available to shoot. Additionally, teams with big leads typically lose the expected goals battle during those gamestates. Oh, and they were playing the former tournament favorites, not Saudi Arabia. Those things make it all the more impressive that Germany manhandled Brazil by Expected Goals, as well as on the scoreboard. Below one can find Expected Goals data by game from this World Cup.

Competitive refers to minutes played when the score was within one, and Comp.xGD is the Expected Goal differential during those times.

Team	Opponent	xGF	xGA	xGD	Competitive	Comp.xGD
GER	ALG	3.28	1.01	2.26	126.4	2.03
FRA	HON	2.19	0.17	2.02	50.6	0.98
GER	POR	2.47	0.53	1.94	31.1	0.10
BRA	CMR	2.60	0.69	1.92	50.0	0.74
NED	ESP	2.82	0.97	1.84	65.0	-0.00
GRE	CRC	2.33	0.52	1.81	129.4	0.88
FRA	SUI	3.13	1.34	1.79	17.2	0.11
CIV	JPN	2.11	0.39	1.72	96.1	0.07
BEL	USA	3.60	2.27	1.33	125.2	1.54
SUI	HON	2.35	1.03	1.32	30.5	0.70
RUS	KOR	1.72	0.40	1.32	95.0	0.77
GHA	USA	1.92	0.65	1.27	99.3	-0.13
JPN	GRE	1.69	0.49	1.20	96.3	1.20
CRC	URU	1.78	0.64	1.14	85.4	-0.03
GER	BRA	2.42	1.30	1.13	22.1	0.37
ESP	AUS	1.16	0.09	1.07	69.9	0.63
BRA	CHI	2.27	1.24	1.02	127.8	1.02
ALG	KOR	2.23	1.26	0.97	27.6	1.24
BRA	MEX	1.44	0.48	0.96	93.3	0.96
ENG	URU	1.58	0.63	0.95	96.0	0.22
ARG	SUI	2.29	1.36	0.93	129.8	1.66
BIH	NGA	1.98	1.05	0.92	94.3	-0.01
ESP	CHI	2.16	1.25	0.92	42.9	0.21
FRA	ECU	1.98	1.14	0.84	96.1	0.84
SUI	ECU	1.50	0.68	0.82	95.3	0.39
FRA	NGA	1.32	0.51	0.82	93.2	0.82
ARG	IRN	1.54	0.73	0.81	96.5	0.81
NED	CHI	1.34	0.57	0.77	92.1	0.43
AUS	CHI	2.01	1.35	0.66	71.7	-0.25
GER	USA	1.22	0.59	0.63	94.3	0.98
ECU	HON	1.25	0.63	0.62	97.3	0.27
CRO	CMR	1.88	1.31	0.58	48.2	0.21
NED	CRC	1.51	0.93	0.58	129.1	0.58
POR	GHA	1.88	1.33	0.55	96.0	-0.22
POR	USA	1.96	1.43	0.53	97.5	-0.05
URU	ITA	1.01	0.50	0.52	98.0	0.49
BEL	RUS	1.22	0.71	0.51	94.4	0.43
BEL	ALG	0.89	0.39	0.50	94.5	-0.12
ARG	NGA	1.62	1.14	0.48	96.0	1.02
FRA	GER	1.64	1.21	0.43	95.5	0.09
NED	MEX	1.09	0.67	0.42	100.9	-0.10
URU	COL	1.12	0.72	0.40	50.1	-0.09
BRA	CRO	1.14	0.77	0.37	92.6	0.18
ENG	CRC	0.43	0.13	0.30	93.2	0.30
COL	JPN	2.39	2.09	0.30	82.3	0.81
ENG	ITA	1.31	1.01	0.30	97.3	-0.53
BIH	IRN	1.05	0.77	0.28	62.4	0.26
COL	CIV	0.99	0.74	0.25	91.9	0.38
GRE	CIV	1.20	0.97	0.23	97.8	0.48
COL	GRE	1.19	0.97	0.22	58.5	0.23
BEL	KOR	1.40	1.21	0.19	96.4	0.79
ARG	BIH	0.73	0.55	0.18	74.7	0.11
GER	GHA	1.26	1.13	0.13	95.2	-0.08
CRC	ITA	0.88	0.75	0.13	95.8	0.19
CMR	MEX	1.12	1.04	0.08	96.1	0.13
BEL	ARG	0.60	0.52	0.08	97.0	-0.13
NGA	IRN	0.72	0.67	0.06	94.0	0.06
MEX	CRO	0.85	0.80	0.04	76.7	0.04
AUS	NED	1.58	1.55	0.03	95.3	0.74
BRA	COL	0.85	0.82	0.02	84.7	0.31
RUS	ALG	0.65	0.64	0.02	95.1	0.14
ALG	RUS	0.64	0.65	-0.02	95.1	-0.14
COL	BRA	0.82	0.85	-0.02	84.7	-0.31
NED	AUS	1.55	1.58	-0.03	95.3	-0.74
CRO	MEX	0.80	0.85	-0.04	76.7	-0.04
IRN	NGA	0.67	0.72	-0.06	94.0	-0.06
ARG	BEL	0.52	0.60	-0.08	97.0	0.13
MEX	CMR	1.04	1.12	-0.08	96.1	-0.13
ITA	CRC	0.75	0.88	-0.13	95.8	-0.19
GHA	GER	1.13	1.26	-0.13	95.2	0.08
BIH	ARG	0.55	0.73	-0.18	74.7	-0.11
KOR	BEL	1.21	1.40	-0.19	96.4	-0.79
GRE	COL	0.97	1.19	-0.22	58.5	-0.23
CIV	GRE	0.97	1.20	-0.23	97.8	-0.48
CIV	COL	0.74	0.99	-0.25	91.9	-0.38
IRN	BIH	0.77	1.05	-0.28	62.4	-0.26
ITA	ENG	1.01	1.31	-0.30	97.3	0.53
JPN	COL	2.09	2.39	-0.30	82.3	-0.81
CRC	ENG	0.13	0.43	-0.30	93.2	-0.30
CRO	BRA	0.77	1.14	-0.37	92.6	-0.18
COL	URU	0.72	1.12	-0.40	50.1	0.09
MEX	NED	0.67	1.09	-0.42	100.9	0.10
GER	FRA	1.21	1.64	-0.43	95.5	-0.09
NGA	ARG	1.14	1.62	-0.48	96.0	-1.02
ALG	BEL	0.39	0.89	-0.50	94.5	0.12
RUS	BEL	0.71	1.22	-0.51	94.4	-0.43
ITA	URU	0.50	1.01	-0.52	98.0	-0.49
USA	POR	1.43	1.96	-0.53	97.5	0.05
GHA	POR	1.33	1.88	-0.55	96.0	0.22
CRC	NED	0.93	1.51	-0.58	129.1	-0.58
CMR	CRO	1.31	1.88	-0.58	48.2	-0.21
HON	ECU	0.63	1.25	-0.62	97.3	-0.27
USA	GER	0.59	1.22	-0.63	94.3	-0.98
CHI	AUS	1.35	2.01	-0.66	71.7	0.25
CHI	NED	0.57	1.34	-0.77	92.1	-0.43
IRN	ARG	0.73	1.54	-0.81	96.5	-0.81
NGA	FRA	0.51	1.32	-0.82	93.2	-0.82
ECU	SUI	0.68	1.50	-0.82	95.3	-0.39
ECU	FRA	1.14	1.98	-0.84	96.1	-0.84
CHI	ESP	1.25	2.16	-0.92	42.9	-0.21
NGA	BIH	1.05	1.98	-0.92	94.3	0.01
SUI	ARG	1.36	2.29	-0.93	129.8	-1.66
URU	ENG	0.63	1.58	-0.95	96.0	-0.22
MEX	BRA	0.48	1.44	-0.96	93.3	-0.96
KOR	ALG	1.26	2.23	-0.97	27.6	-1.24
CHI	BRA	1.24	2.27	-1.02	127.8	-1.02
AUS	ESP	0.09	1.16	-1.07	69.9	-0.63
BRA	GER	1.30	2.42	-1.13	22.1	-0.37
URU	CRC	0.64	1.78	-1.14	85.4	0.03
GRE	JPN	0.49	1.69	-1.20	96.3	-1.20
USA	GHA	0.65	1.92	-1.27	99.3	0.13
KOR	RUS	0.40	1.72	-1.32	95.0	-0.77
HON	SUI	1.03	2.35	-1.32	30.5	-0.70
USA	BEL	2.27	3.60	-1.33	125.2	-1.54
JPN	CIV	0.39	2.11	-1.72	96.1	-0.07
SUI	FRA	1.34	3.13	-1.79	17.2	-0.11
CRC	GRE	0.52	2.33	-1.81	129.4	-0.88
ESP	NED	0.97	2.82	-1.84	65.0	0.00
CMR	BRA	0.69	2.60	-1.92	50.0	-0.74
POR	GER	0.53	2.47	-1.94	31.1	-0.10
HON	FRA	0.17	2.19	-2.02	50.6	-0.98
ALG	GER	1.01	3.28	-2.26	126.4	-2.03

Jermaine Jones may be headed to MLS; where could he fit?

By Harrison Crow (@harrison_crow)

For those who weren't paying attention this past week, we learned about the possibility of Jermaine Jones headed to Major League Soccer. His cryptic instagram vaguely built upon the contested thought that he could join MLS sometime this summer. All this after the speculation that ran wild through the winter that he could be headed state side and follow Clint Dempsey and Michael Bradly, US national team mates, who have made similar transitions themselves. Instead he took the path less traveled and headed to Turkish Süper Lig, Besiktas.

For those that didn't see the instagram.

It appears now, post-US World Cup, that the rumors of his connections to MLS are being renewed. Which then begs much analysis as to who might acquire him. Adding further fuel to the fire, Toronto FC has the number one spot in the allocation ranking, something they most surely would not use due to being full up on designated players and busting at the seams with their cap. They also were forced to trade key youth designated player Matias Laba, another midfielder, earlier this year for basically nothing. To a country and league rival (Vancouver). It can certainly be accepted that they have no plans to make use of that selection.

For those of you that are new to MLS, the allocation order itself is a process which MLS uses to disperse returning US National team players across the league. Some people say it's stupid, and other people say it's... well, stupid. It's what MLS has chosen to do at this point.

While it's tricky to nail down how much an individual could sign for in regards to MLS, we can at least garner a rough guess thanks to Trasnfermarkt.co.uk which has determined his rough market value to be around 2.64M £.

If we run with this number it would, obviously, put him into the designated player category, unless he signs for less than that. However, being that he endeared himself to fans during this World Cup run, we can just assume that's not going to happen.

Now everyone that has speculated a possible landing place is looking for "the best team fit" for him. I'm going in a bit different direction. I looked at all 19 teams, their total roster churn, trades involving allocation and designated player slots. From there I made a graph, because I like visuals.

By adjusted for US soccer loans, it means I did not count a player lost if he was loaned to a lower division.

Ignoring teams with all three designated players slots, that would leave us with 13 teams that have a 'spot' for Jones. Of those 13, there are three clubs that have acquired more allocation than they've received. They are: Chicago Fire, Real Salt Lake and San Jose Earthquakes

Chicago Fire

They've been clearing tons of cap room all year and recently got an international team to take up a designated player. The Fire is club that has been a staple of MLS for years and has been on the downward swing now for a couple seasons. There is room to make this deal happen and considering their last-place position in the standings, they need to do something. The fact that Frank Yallop is head of the club and often plays with two central midfielders is a further plus. Don't overlook, Chi-town.

Real Salt Lake

Now, sure, everyone is going to rebuff this idea because they have Kyle Beckerman. But after this World Cup I'm not sure that's really a 'con'. However, their formation gives more credence that it's unlikely that it would happen. Even with Jeff Ceasar taking over the helm, post Jason Kreis, the club has stuck rather rigorously to the 4-1-2-1-2 formation, which is just a slight modification to the diamond the organization has stuck with for years. No, even with the probability of having the money to make this move, I don't see it happening.

San Jose Earthquakes

The notoriously frugal Quakes are opening up a new stadium next season. Adding another US Mens National team player to their stable is a good PR move. There is also the fact that Jones lives on the West Coast (LA to be precise) and he could be more inclined to play near his new home in So Cal. 

There is also the little business of San Jose being a last place western division team, 6 points from the 5th and final playoff spot. They need help, and with a game in hand on Chivas and three on Portland---the two teams that that sit just above them---a move could bring more momentum to this club at the right time. Add to it all the fact that San Jose is perhaps the most physical club in the league, and Jones oozes the persona to fit in with Victor Bernardez, Alan Gordon and the rest of the hard-nosed goonies.

---

Finally, DC United and Sporting Kansas City are as good spots as any. Both have DP room and potential money to spend. United parting ways with Christian Fernández and SKC transferring Oriol Rosell to Portugal both are signs of that. There is also the idea of going to play for a contender which obviously pulled him towards Turkey this past winter. Representing either one of these MLS clubs would give him the opportunity of not just playing in the playoffs but also representing MLS in the Champions League.

There is a case to be made for Chivas USA too. A club with some cash that is headed towards a(nother) rebranding and is in desperate need of any type of talent upgrade. The only real problem is their full up on DPs, and I'm not certain how they would go about fixing that issue. I would assume that Rosales is the most expendable, but I'm not sure about their wide midfield situation, which doesn't currently look good.

Overall the 'Jermaine Jones sweepstakes' could be one of the more interesting plot twists to this MLS season. It could impact the top of the table fight or even help propel a floundering team to one of the last playoff spots.  It's something to watch unfold during the MLS transfer window that just so happens to open up today. That window will remain open until August 8th.

A profile of MLS clubs and core players

By Harrison Crow (@harrison_crow)

Okay, so last week I wrote about why you should follow US-based soccer leagues, and more specifically Major League Soccer. That belief is built off the assumption that you really enjoyed following the US Men's National Team during the World Cup. I realize that sports fans, and more specifically the current generation of sports fans, are apt to follow individual players rather than specific clubs or teams. I don't know if this is a result of free-agency where players change teams so quickly or just the fact that athletes are a brand in-and-of themselves with today's culture.

The other side of the coin is that many of us grew up following specific teams. Most often they were local, though sometimes not. It might have been the Seattle Mariners or Dallas Cowboys, Denver Nuggets or maybe even the New York Islanders. If you grew up in the South it was likely a college team. University of Kentucky basketball or 'Bama football. Whatever random, odd specific thing it was that drew your favor to a team, if you were like me, you liked one team more than the rest, while players came and went.

Keeping these two thoughts in mind, I decided to build a post that melds the two ideas together. Breaking down clubs across the league, highlighting names of importance and doing it all without giving away a predisposition. I present this all without commentary in the hopes that you can form your own opinions about teams and players. Perhaps some ideas about what teams or players might interest you and drive you to finding out more about them.

I did this all by collecting detailed club 'characteristics' as provided by WhoScored. This hopefully gives you some insight as to how teams play. As an example, most that follow the NFL know the Pittsburgh Steelers have long been a team that is built around the defense, being able to run the ball, and overall physicality. How do we take that and compare it to what the LA Galaxy do? What are their tendencies as a club?  How do we as soccer fans quickly relate their style?

Players' information comes by way of the analytical site Squawka and their individual player performance score. Understand that this score comes by way of quantified data and doesn't necessarily calculate everything. Both sets of information compiled are based upon data facilitated by Opta. Each have draw backs to the way they interpret their conclusions.

Without further ado here are the 19 MLS clubs, their profiles and some of their important core players.

Top-15 Attackers in MLS

All data based upon per90 rate, minimum of 5 matches played.

Top-15 Possession based players in MLS

All data based upon per90 rate, minimum of 5 matches played.

Top-15 Defenders in MLS

All data based upon per90 rate, minimum of 5 matches played.

Top-15 Players 21 and Under

Top-15 Players in MLS

All data based upon per90 rate, minimum of 8 matches played.

These numbers are all from a week ago, so if you look up on Squawka now you will notice a few slight differences. You'll probably also notice that there are a lot of repeat names on these lists. The big names that you saw in the World Cup and then some new ones. One name that surprised me that didn't make any of the lists is also the guy whose stock got the biggest boost from the World Cup, DeAndre Yedlin. But, I'll reference Mr. Matthew Doyle the Airmen Chair Analyst of MLSoccer.com from twitter.

@aaronstol and as always: Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

— Matthew Doyle (@MLSAnalyst) July 3, 2014

Yedlin is certainly a growing name in MLS and maybe we'll get to him in another post. Unfortunately while he's an exciting young talent, Squawka and their formula has not been keen with how he's performed to this point in the season. We still love him, and that's what's important.

Looking at other major sports in the US, MLS doesn't really have that Lebron James or Mike Trout icon. There is no dominant player that simply bends the game to his will on this side of the pond; though watching the second half of Seattle in Portland one might mistake Clint Dempsey as that individual.

Many of you know both Michael Bradley and Dempsey are electric talents in this league and each mean a great deal to their clubs and their fans. I would say that the man they call Deuce is more of a Dirk Nowitzki type of player. Creative, probably underrated in a lot of ways from the international perspective and works incredibly hard. Bradley, on the other hand, is a Chris Paul type. A distributor that picks out passes, unlocks defenses, able score goals and is one of the best defensive talents in the league.

Others could compare either of these two to a myriad of other American sports figures, these were just the two that came to my mind. As they aren't the end all and be all of their craft but still very good players. The take away here though is simply MLS isn't a league of stars. It's a league of very good players with a bevy of depth spread across the league.

The league is growing with world renown players like Kaká headed to Orlando for the 2015 season. As well as New York City FC already splurging on a couple of legendary footballers in David Villa and Frank Lampard for next season too. Major League Soccer is adding to their wealth of talent already available and with it fans from around the world. Now is a great time to get to know a league that is privy to some of the most unique talent that is largely under appreciated across the world.

Donovan wishes the USMNT had been more aggressive; I do, too

By Matthias Kullowatz (@MattyAnselmo)

In so many words, Landon Donovan said that he thought the U.S. Men's National Team should have been more aggressive.

"[I]f I'm in that locker room before that game – before the Germany game, before the Belgium game – and the coach walked in and said we're playing a 4-5-1 and Clint [Dempsey] is up top by himself, I would have been disappointed. Because I would have said let's go for it. I want a chance to go for it and try to win the game."

The USMNT took a pounding against Belgium, facing 39 shots worth an average value of nearly five goals. The team's tactics mimicked those of many other teams in the tournament that were praying for a draw (and possibly the ensuing penalties, depending on the round). Iran against Argentina, Algeria against Germany, Mexico against Brazil.

These traditional tactics make some sense, as increasing the chances of a draw in regulation is beneficial for an underdog. But I'm not so sure it always maximizes that lesser team's chances of a positive result. I wrote a while back about how away teams in MLS did much better in the first half of games than in the second half when the game was tied. One possible cause might be that away teams fatigue faster, but I don't think that makes up the whole discrepancy. Tactics change, and though it might seem like a chicken-and-the-egg issue, I think it's the underdog that first decides to turtle up before the favorite becomes more aggressive. 

The World Cup showed us similar results, with many teams stubbornly sticking to a conservative gameplan. Expected Goals during tied scores (even gamestates) serves as a reasonable barometer for how aggressive a team was able to be---or chose to be. Using ESPN's Soccer Power Index, I can estimate by how much a favored team should beat the underdog in terms of Expected Goals during even gamestates. SPI was able to predict these expected goal differentials with an R-squared value of 0.35. The scatter plot (for games in which at least 20 minutes were played in an even gamestate) is shown below with 95-percent prediction intervals.

Among the underdogs, only Japan in its game against Colombia performed worse than the United States against Belgium---that is, compared to how they were "supposed" to do. Much of the deviation from the regression line can be attributed to the SPI not being a perfect indication of team ability, as well as the variance of Expected Goals over a small sample size. But combined with the fact that the USMNT came out in a 4-5-1, the American's massive underperformance in getting quality shots off suggests that tactics were at least as much to blame as any discrepancy in ability. 

Obviously, getting better shots---and more of them---is important to winning soccer games, and that's exactly what Expected Goals tries to measure. It's not surprising, then, that those underdogs that were able to outperform their predicted Expected Goals earned more favorable results collectively than those underdogs that were not able to do so. The only question that remains for any great deviation from expectation, then, is was it by choice or by force? The USA loss to Belgium reeks of choice.

I leave you with the list of results of those games in which at least 20 minutes were played in an even gamestate:

Favorite	Underdog	SPIdiff	EvenMins	xGoalDiff	PredictedxGoalDiff	Underperformance	Points
COL	JPN	1.4	26	2.92	0.97	1.95	0
BEL	USA	0.2	98	1.49	-0.01	1.50	0
ARG	NGA	1.6	47	2.05	1.13	0.91	0
GER	USA	1.2	55	1.71	0.81	0.90	0
GER	ALG	1.6	97	2.00	1.13	0.87	0
BRA	CMR	2.5	25	2.64	1.87	0.78	0
FRA	HON	1.9	44	2.10	1.38	0.72	0
NED	CHI	0.1	77	0.53	-0.09	0.62	0
SUI	ECU	0.2	67	0.55	-0.01	0.56	0
ESP	AUS	1.6	36	1.69	1.13	0.56	0
ARG	SUI	1.2	122	1.29	0.81	0.48	0
BRA	CHI	0.7	114	0.86	0.40	0.46	1
BIH	IRN	1.0	23	1.08	0.64	0.43	0
RUS	KOR	0.7	89	0.83	0.40	0.43	1
RUS	ALG	0.1	41	0.32	-0.09	0.41	1
JPN	GRE	0.1	96	0.18	-0.09	0.27	1
FRA	NGA	1.1	81	0.96	0.72	0.23	0
BEL	RUS	0.5	88	0.47	0.24	0.23	0
ENG	CRC	0.4	93	0.31	0.15	0.15	1
MEX	CRO	0.1	73	0.05	-0.09	0.15	0
NED	ESP	0.2	36	-0.01	-0.01	0.00	0
POR	USA	0.0	23	-0.20	-0.17	-0.03	1
COL	CIV	1.0	64	0.57	0.64	-0.08	0
COL	URU	0.7	28	0.32	0.40	-0.08	0
URU	ITA	0.4	83	0.07	0.15	-0.08	0
URU	CRC	0.5	27	0.11	0.24	-0.13	3
BRA	MEX	1.6	93	0.98	1.13	-0.16	1
BEL	KOR	1.2	79	0.65	0.81	-0.16	0
FRA	ECU	0.9	96	0.39	0.56	-0.18	1
BIH	NGA	0.4	28	-0.04	0.15	-0.19	3
ECU	HON	1.0	64	0.41	0.64	-0.24	0
NGA	IRN	0.6	94	0.06	0.32	-0.26	1
POR	GHA	0.1	53	-0.40	-0.09	-0.31	0
ITA	CRC	0.1	44	-0.41	-0.09	-0.31	3
CRC	GRE	0.3	91	-0.26	0.07	-0.33	1
URU	ENG	0.1	48	-0.43	-0.09	-0.34	0
NED	CRC	1.2	129	0.43	0.81	-0.38	1
BEL	ALG	0.6	33	-0.35	0.32	-0.67	0
MEX	CMR	0.9	62	-0.21	0.56	-0.77	0
ARG	IRN	2.2	92	0.83	1.62	-0.79	0
NED	MEX	1.0	58	-0.16	0.64	-0.80	0
BRA	CRO	1.7	54	0.32	1.21	-0.89	0
GER	GHA	1.3	84	-0.09	0.89	-0.97	1
CIV	GRE	0.5	61	-0.75	0.24	-0.98	3
ENG	ITA	0.3	49	-1.03	0.07	-1.10	3
NED	AUS	1.8	65	-1.08	1.30	-2.38	0

*The Algeria drubbing of Korea cannot be found on the graph, as it was such an extreme outlier.

**The SPIdiff can be seen as the number of goals by which a favorite was expected to beat an underdog, according Nate Silver's explanation.

A 2018 World Cup roster prediction that isn't entirely stupid

By Drew Olsen (@DrewJOlsen)

After a few days of mourning the USA's elimination from the World Cup, we've had enough time to catch our collective breath and look forward to the next one (only 1440 days!). This tournament isn't even over yet, but as we approach Independence Day riding the high on the USMNT’s run past Ronaldo to the round of 16, writers everywhere are already looking forward to 2018 and others are telling them they’re stupid for even trying.

I definitely lean towards the latter camp, but I don't think it's a useless exercise. None of us are mind readers, but that doesn't prevent us from making an educated guess. I’m not going to try to summon the names of who will go to Russia, as such an effort seems like a fool’s errand. Instead, I want to figure out the makeup of what the roster could look like. Based on past trends, we may be able to paint a vague picture of what the next World Cup roster might be built from.

Let’s take a look at where we were at this point in 2010, and what roster we ultimately ended up with.

First some ground rules. Per the venerable Paul Carr (Paul Carr blows your mind) we can probably assume[1] that it is unlikely there will be any players on the roster over 32. This rules out[2] Beasley, Beckerman, Davis, Dempsey, Jones, Wondolowski.

Only outfield player over 32 in last 3 U.S. WC teams was 2006 McBride. 35+ in 2018: Beasley, Beckerman, Davis, Dempsey, Jones, Wondo.

— Paul Carr (@PCarrESPN) July 3, 2014

If we keep riding the Paul Carr roller coaster, we can guess that there will probably be six to 13 players from the 2014 team on the 2018 roster.

Players from previous World Cup roster on U.S. WC roster: 2014: 6 2010: 8 2006: 12 2002: 11 1998: 13 1994: 6

— Paul Carr (@PCarrESPN) July 3, 2014

Let’s take that a step further and see what that list looks like when we add in the coaches for those teams.

Coach	Year	Returning Players
Jurgen Klinsmann	2014	6
Bob Bradley	2010	8
Bruce Arena	2006	12
Bruce Arena	2002	11
Steve Sampson	1998	13
Bora Milutinović	1994	6
Bob Gansler	1990

After digging a little deeper, we realize six is probably a low estimate. All three years that fewer than 11 players were chosen from the previous World Cup, it came with a new coach and followed a team that was generally considered a disappointment. 1990 was the first world cup the USA had been to in decades, so we were just happy to be there. Still, losing all three games and conceding eight goals wasn't exactly something to be proud of and only six players from that team made the squad in 1994. That year the USA impressed, making the knockout stage barely losing to eventual champion Brazil. In 2006, the USA finished last in their group and Bruce Arena was fired. Bob Bradley cleaned house in 2010, bringing only eight players from the 2006 team. Still, he was unable to overcome USA nemesis Ghana and was fired shortly thereafter. Klinsmann shocked many when he took only six members of Bradley’s team, but exceeded expectations by getting out of the Group of Death and pushing Belgium to the brink.

There is a clear pattern in the roster carry-over from cycle to cycle. If the USA did well 12 or 13 players returned for the subsequent tournament. If America did poorly the number was six or eight[3]. Based on both continuity – Klinsmann will probably still be the coach – and the success of the 2014 team, there is likely to be around 10-12 players from the current roster on the 2018 one. That leaves about 10 open roster spots.

If Klinsmann sticks to his youth-oriented focus, some players are likely to come out of nowhere. Of the 2014 squad, 12[4] of the 23 earned their first USA cap after the 2010 World Cup. Indeed, in some capacity seven of those players had been called up by other countries! We love our troops, and we love them even more when they marry abroad and produce talented young players. Klinsmann did well to recruit the low-hanging-fruit abroad in 2014, but it is safe to assume other countries will better court (read: protect) their young players before 2018, and the USA will have fewer new players to steal away.

Finally, there might be some guys that have been previously capped, but didn't make this squad. These are the Camerons, Beckermans, and the Davis’ of the group.  Forty-four different players that didn't make this World Cup team have been called up only in the last year, and 34 of those players will be 32 or younger in 2018. With Klinsmann likely to bring players he’s already looked (and is looking) at, we can assume that there are a number of players in that pool that will make it in 2018.

Based on all the above factors, I've pulled together a broad look at what the USA’s 2018 roster might look like. 

10-12 Players from the 2014 squad
4-8 Who have played for the USA, but didn’t make the 2014 team
5-10 Yet to earn their first USMNT cap

So there you have it! When reading projected 23 man rosters that you recognize all the names on, take a step back and remember how little we (and US Soccer) actually know. If I had told you four years ago that Matt Besler or Fabian Johnson[5] would be integral and instrumental parts of the 2014 World Cup team, you would have given me a blank stare. Also it’s a dumb premise because I wouldn't have told you that.

I won’t fault you for reading all those fun roster projections (clearly I've been reading them, too), but take each one with a grain of salt. And in 2018 when we realize that Simon Borg successfully predicted the roster four years prior, please send me an angry email.

[1] We can assume nothing.

[2] See the above footnote. Ruling any of them out right now is totally insane. As a reference, Tim Cahill was 34 for this World Cup and Andrea Pirlo was 35. They did alright.

[3] Notice that I’ve skipped 2002, which returned 11 players from the disastrous 1998 team that finished dead last. This is another ginormous assumption, but many blamed coach Steve Sampson (he of the famous 3-6-1 formation) instead of the players. That’s my flimsy excuse for this exception to the rule.

[4] Yedlin, Gonzalez, Besler, Brooks, Chandler, Fabian Johnson, Jermaine Jones, Diskerud, Green, Zusi, Johannsson, and Wondolowski

[5] Or DeAndre Yedlin, or John Brooks, or DaMarcus Beasley, or Timmy Chandler, or Mix Diskerud, or Julian Green, or Aron Johannsson, or Chris Wondolowski…

Tim Howard's effort against Belgium

American goalkeeper Tim Howard had a fantastic game against Belgium on Tuesday. It might have been the game of his life, and Wikipedia fittingly gave him a new job. We don't actually have data for every game he's ever kept, but we can put his performance into some perspective. 

On Tuesday, his Keeper Rating---based off each shot's origin, goalmouth placement, and pattern of play---represented the best single-game performance of any goalkeeper thus far in the tournament. Belgium laid siege on his goal, firing off a tournament-high 39 shots. 17 of those were on frame, also a tournament-high. They probably should have scored four or five goals, but that wasn't going to happen on Howard's watch. The chart below summarizes every game of the tournament to date for each keeper.

Keeper	Team	Opponent	SOT	Goals	xGoals	Rating
T. Howard	USA	BEL	17	2	4.68	-2.68
V. Enyeama	NGA	BIH	7	0	2.46	-2.46
A. Dominguez	ECU	FRA	9	0	2.44	-2.44
G. Ochoa	MEX	BRA	6	0	2.31	-2.31
D. Benaglio	SUI	ARG	8	1	2.93	-1.93
F. Dauda	GHA	POR	7	1	2.46	-1.46
T. Courtois	BEL	KOR	4	0	1.41	-1.41
C. Bravo	CHI	ESP	6	0	1.34	-1.34
F. Muslera	URU	ENG	6	1	2.34	-1.34
D. Ospina	COL	URU	4	0	1.25	-1.25
Julio Cesar	BRA	CRO	3	0	1.20	-1.20
S. Romero	ARG	SUI	4	0	1.17	-1.17
V. Enyeama	NGA	FRA	5	1	2.06	-1.06
C. Bravo	CHI	AUS	4	1	2.03	-1.03
K. Navas	CRC	GRE	8	1	1.95	-0.95
E. Kawashima	JPN	GRE	4	0	0.95	-0.95
N. Valladares	HON	FRA	5	2	2.84	-0.84
A. Begovic	BIH	NGA	9	1	1.80	-0.80
N. Valladares	HON	SUI	10	3	3.79	-0.79
I. Akinfeev	RUS	ALG	6	1	1.75	-0.75
T. Courtois	BEL	USA	5	1	1.74	-0.74
H. Lloris	FRA	ECU	2	0	0.73	-0.73
Alireza Haghighi	IRN	NGA	4	0	0.72	-0.72
K. Navas	CRC	URU	3	1	1.71	-0.71
O. Karnezis	GRE	JPN	4	0	0.62	-0.62
M. Neuer	GER	POR	4	0	0.61	-0.61
S. Romero	ARG	IRN	3	0	0.60	-0.60
S. Sirigu	ITA	ENG	5	1	1.60	-0.60
D. Benaglio	SUI	HON	3	0	0.48	-0.48
K. Navas	CRC	ITA	4	0	0.47	-0.47
G. Ochoa	MEX	CMR	1	0	0.47	-0.47
C. Bravo	CHI	BRA	6	1	1.45	-0.45
D. Ospina	COL	GRE	2	0	0.45	-0.45
T. Courtois	BEL	RUS	3	0	0.41	-0.41
V. Enyeama	NGA	ARG	13	3	3.41	-0.41
G. Buffon	ITA	URU	5	1	1.41	-0.41
Jung Sung-Ryong	KOR	RUS	5	1	1.41	-0.41
M. Neuer	GER	ALG	4	1	1.33	-0.33
Julio Cesar	BRA	MEX	2	0	0.33	-0.33
V. Enyeama	NGA	IRN	1	0	0.30	-0.30
S. Pletikosa	CRO	CMR	2	0	0.29	-0.29
D. Ospina	COL	JPN	7	1	1.29	-0.29
T. Howard	USA	GER	6	1	1.24	-0.24
J. Cillessen	NED	AUS	4	2	2.20	-0.20
B. Foster	ENG	CRC	2	0	0.19	-0.19
J. Cillessen	NED	ESP	4	1	1.18	-0.18
Beto	POR	GHA	4	1	1.16	-0.16
K. Navas	CRC	ENG	1	0	0.16	-0.16
A. Dominguez	ECU	SUI	6	2	2.14	-0.14
O. Karnezis	GRE	CIV	4	1	1.14	-0.14
Julio Cesar	BRA	CHI	2	1	1.14	-0.14
J. Cillessen	NED	CHI	1	0	0.13	-0.13
Kim Seung-Gyu	KOR	BEL	5	1	1.12	-0.12
A. Begovic	BIH	ARG	2	1	1.11	-0.11
H. Lloris	FRA	NGA	2	0	0.10	-0.10
G. Buffon	ITA	CRC	5	1	1.07	-0.07
H. Lloris	FRA	HON	1	0	0.07	-0.07
G. Ochoa	MEX	NED	4	2	2.07	-0.07
F. Muslera	URU	ITA	1	0	0.04	-0.04
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	RUS	4	1	1.04	-0.04
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	GER	12	2	2.01	-0.01
J. Reina	ESP	AUS	0	0	0.00	0.00
M. Neuer	GER	USA	0	0	0.00	0.00
C. Itandje	CMR	MEX	4	1	0.99	0.01
D. Ospina	COL	CIV	3	1	0.94	0.06
J. Cillessen	NED	MEX	5	1	0.92	0.08
I. Akinfeev	RUS	KOR	5	1	0.87	0.13
S. Romero	ARG	BIH	6	1	0.86	0.14
Alireza Haghighi	IRN	ARG	4	1	0.84	0.16
A. Dominguez	ECU	HON	5	1	0.81	0.19
Julio Cesar	BRA	CMR	1	1	0.79	0.21
A. Begovic	BIH	IRN	2	1	0.77	0.23
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	BEL	7	2	1.74	0.26
T. Howard	USA	POR	7	2	1.71	0.29
D. Benaglio	SUI	FRA	12	5	4.70	0.30
B. Barry	CIV	GRE	5	2	1.69	0.31
T. Howard	USA	GHA	3	1	0.68	0.32
T. Courtois	BEL	ALG	1	1	0.61	0.39
D. Benaglio	SUI	ECU	4	1	0.61	0.39
B. Barry	CIV	COL	6	2	1.57	0.43
I. Akinfeev	RUS	BEL	2	1	0.54	0.46
G. Ochoa	MEX	CRO	2	1	0.54	0.46
B. Barry	CIV	JPN	2	1	0.53	0.47
I. Casillas	ESP	CHI	4	2	1.50	0.50
F. Dauda	GHA	GER	4	2	1.49	0.51
M. Neuer	GER	GHA	6	2	1.45	0.55
N. Valladares	HON	ECU	4	2	1.43	0.57
O. Karnezis	GRE	COL	6	3	2.38	0.62
C. Itandje	CMR	BRA	10	4	3.32	0.68
C. Bravo	CHI	NED	4	2	1.28	0.72
S. Romero	ARG	NGA	3	2	1.24	0.76
O. Karnezis	GRE	CRC	1	1	0.22	0.78
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	KOR	3	2	1.06	0.94
E. Kawashima	JPN	CIV	5	2	1.01	0.99
F. Muslera	URU	CRC	4	3	2.01	0.99
S. Pletikosa	CRO	BRA	6	3	1.95	1.05
Rui Patricio	POR	GER	6	4	2.94	1.06
A. Larsen Kwarasey	GHA	USA	4	2	0.92	1.08
F. Muslera	URU	COL	4	2	0.89	1.11
Beto	POR	USA	4	2	0.85	1.15
J. Hart	ENG	ITA	3	2	0.79	1.21
S. Pletikosa	CRO	MEX	4	3	1.74	1.26
I. Casillas	ESP	NED	10	5	3.59	1.41
Jung Sung-Ryong	KOR	ALG	5	4	2.58	1.42
H. Lloris	FRA	SUI	4	2	0.58	1.42
Alireza Haghighi	IRN	BIH	5	3	1.54	1.46
J. Hart	ENG	URU	2	2	0.45	1.55
M. Ryan	AUS	NED	9	3	1.43	1.57
M. Ryan	AUS	CHI	4	3	1.39	1.61
C. Itandje	CMR	CRO	9	4	2.38	1.62
M. Ryan	AUS	ESP	4	3	0.90	2.10
E. Kawashima	JPN	COL	4	4	1.72	2.28