World Cup: Passing Stats for England-Germany and Mexico-Argentina

by Hawerchuk on Jun 27, 2010 9:02 PM EDT in Zzz...Soccer

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - JUNE 27: Gonzalo Higuain of Argentina breaks away to score the second goal for his team during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Round of Sixteen match between Argentina and Mexico at Soccer City Stadium on June 27, 2010 in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Photo by Lars Baron/Getty Images)

We saw a 4-1 game and a 3-1 game today, but they couldn't have been played any differently. First, because Argentina and Germany built up big leads, we'd expect possession and passing to be in England and Mexico's favor, and it is:

	Minutes	Pass F	Weighted	Pass A	Weighted	% of Passes	% of Weighted	% Possession
England	93.1	379	82	320	75	54	52	52
Mexico	95.0	350	84	347	65	50	56	49

Even though they were down and had nothing to lose, the English did not completely dominate possession. Let's look at what happened when the game was tied or within a goal:

England	Minutes	Pass F	Weighted	Pass A	Weighted	% of Passes	% of Weighted
Tied	19.7	448	88	315	72	59	55
Down 1	42.7	418	87	247	62	63	58

The English completely controlled the play but allowed Germany to score. Compare that to Mexico:

Mexico	Minutes	Pass F	Weighted	Pass A	Weighted	% of Passes	% of Weighted
Tied	25.0	299	64	547	96	35	40
Down 1	7.2	213	36	476	66	31	35

In this case, Argentina dominated the game. We'd expect Mexico to have very little chance of winning if they only had the ball 30-40% of the time.

Let's look at our four qualifiers for the Round of 8 so far:

	Minutes	Pass F	Weighted	Pass A	Weighted	% of Passes	% of Weighted
Uruguay	20.2	365	93	223	40	62	70
Argentina	25.0	547	96	299	64	65	60
Ghana	39.1	352	78	304	58	54	57
Germany	19.7	315	72	448	88	41	45

I think Argentina is the strongest of the group so far, having so thoroughly controlled the game against a very good Mexican team. But there's no denying that Uruguay is much more likely to beat Ghana than Argentina is Germany. If I were the Germans, I wouldn't get complacent - they did not play all that well against England, and Argentina will abuse them if they own 55-60% of the possession when the game is close.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Maybe I missed some analysis somewhere, but I have trouble buying that Mexico is a very good team. They seem to be an above average team that lucks into playing inferior competition, based on their region (CONCACAF) and just the luck of the draw.

Maybe I’m wrong there, but I just don’t see the Mexican team as all that good.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jun 28, 2010 2:43 PM EDT reply actions

They were very strong in the first round:

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/6/25/1537499/world-cup-quarterfinalist-passing

Nate Silver’s recursive rankings have them 12th

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/spi/rankings?cc=5901&ver=us

They did really well in the last year – they beat the US 5-0 away and beat Italy and Chile, while losing to England and Holland.

by Hawerchuk on Jun 28, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions

They played 3 awful teams in the first round. Uruguay is ok. France was historically (and comically) dysfunctional and S. Africa might have been the weakest host country of all time.

Historically they are considered a 2nd tier team, right behind Italy, Germany, Argentina and Brazil and with the likes of England, France, Netherlands, & Spain. But they have never even gotten out of the round of 16 on foreign soil. (That said, all those teams have a history of coming up short in these games, but they’ve had more success in Euro competitions)

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jun 28, 2010 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Uruguay is 7th in the SPI. They are on a par with Chile and about one goal worse than Argentina.

As for Mexico, they were the best team to lose in the round of 16 through the first four games, were they not?

by Hawerchuk on Jun 28, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think so. Other than the 0-5 drubbing last season (In Mexico City) USA has been fairly dominant over Mexico the last 3-4 years. I’d take England and Chile over Mexico too. I think they’re the worst of the 4 in all honesty

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jun 28, 2010 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions

3/27/05 – Mex 2 – USA 1
11/3/05 – USA 2 – Mex 0
2/7/07 – USA 2 – Mex 0
6/24/07 – USA 2 – Mex 1
2/6/08 – USA 2 – Mex 2
2/11/09 – USA 2 – Mex 0
7/26/09 – Mex 5 – USA 0
8/12/09 – Mex 2 – USA 1

I guess SPI rewards recency – the GF/GA is 12-12 over 8 matches, but the US lost the home-and-home last year.

by Hawerchuk on Jun 28, 2010 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I’d say the US and Mexico are equals at this point. But No one considers the US on that second tier of teams, if anything the US is a bit underrated. Mexico are always considered outside chances of winning the cup, I don’t think that’s even close to the case, unless you’re talking WAAAAY outside.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jun 28, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions

SPI is pretty clear about this for teams that qualified for the cup:

Top 4 – Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Holland
Next 4 – Germany, Portugal, Uruguay, England
Next 4 – Chile, Cote D’Ivoire(!), Mexico, Korea
Next 4 – Serbia, Paraguay, USA, Italy
Next 4 – Slovenia, France, Ghana, Switzerland

I don’t think England played well enough to say that they’re obviously better than Mexico. Chile is probably the best loser so far, and soon Portugal will have that title.

by Hawerchuk on Jun 28, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I think England was the unluckiest team in the tournament. They had that ridiculously unlucky goal against the US, a game they dominated. They pretty much seemed to dominate Algeria and Slovenia, but just had Capitals vs Halak disease. They really dominated Group C, and your analysis backs that up

Then they faced a very good Germany team, and had an obvious goal disallowed, one that makes the game 2-2. I think Germany’s the better team, but Eng deserved better than their 4-1 fate (since both 3rd and 4th goals were symptoms of England pressing very badly.)

I don’t think England played far as bad as their record showed. If someone gave me even money on England-Mexico in a neutral location, I’d bet heavily on England.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jun 29, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Network Bar

Arctic Ice Hockey -

Where we hate Winnipeg's natural rivals, the Florida Panthers