The passing network
The Round 4 Hockey One League (M) match between NSW Pride and Perth Thundersticks was a clash between different tactical formations and different playing styles. The Pride ran a 4-4-2 formation, using Dylan Martin, at centre-back, as the main playmaker with the ball and adopting a diamond shape for the for the back four when the side does not have the ball. The Thundersticks’ tended to adopt a 3-2-3-2 formation, however it did vary the composition of this structure between defence and attack. A typical defensive setup for Perth Thundersticks is illustrated in Figure 1. In attack, Jake Harvie tended to drop closer to Aran Zalewski, and Chris Bausor dropped into the back three, this enabled either the left or right back (e.g., Taylor or Murray) to move up the field to becoming an attacking midfielder. Figure 1 shows the formations and starting roster for each team.
Figure 1: Formation and starting teams for NSW Pride (left) and Perth Thundersticks (right).
The structures also led to different play styles. One way to observe this is through the number of completed passes for each player. For NSW Pride, the centre back duo of Martin and Gray made the most passes, with central midfielders – generally Hayes, Ogilvie or Dorman – making fewer passes than the defensive players (see Figure 2). By contrast, the central midfielders for the Perth Thundersticks – Zalewski and Jake Harvie – making a much greater number of passes than their NSW counterparts.
Figure 3: Completed passes by player.
The different passing networks for each team illustrate the differences in playing styles. For NSW Pride, the play was set up from the back (see Figure 3). Gray and Proctor, predominantly supplied balls to Martin who acted as a playmaker by distributing balls to the midfield and into attack. There are few passes between the midfield and the strikers, which reflects NSW Pride’s counter-attacking style, with midfielders often carrying the ball into attack rather than making many passes forward.
Figure 3: NSW Pride’s passing network.
Notes: Only players in the starting team shown on diagram. Larger nodes (i.e., dots) indicate more complete passes. Arrows indicate direction of pass. The colour and thickness of an arrow indicates the volume of passes in that direction. Red indicates a relatively large volume of passes and blue indicates relatively low volume of passes.
The passing network for Perth Thundersticks features Zalewski as a key outlet from defence and the main distributor into Perth’s midfield (see Figure 4). Zalewski had the highest differential between passes played and passes received (16), which reflect his defensive play and command over free hits. The flow of passes out of Perth’s defence typically came through Bausor, who would then distribute to Zalewski or Jake Harvie. The network graph shows that Perth’s other centre backs (e.g., Tom Harvie), made the majority of their passes to Bausor rather than directly into the midfield. In contrast to NSW, Perth have more passes from the back and the midfield directly into the high forwards (e.g., Flynn and Wickham).
Figure 4: Perth Thundersticks’ passing network.
Notes: Only players in the starting team shown on diagram. Larger nodes (i.e., dots) indicate more complete passes. Arrows indicate direction of pass. The colour and thickness of an arrow indicates the volume of passes in that direction. Red indicates a relatively large volume of passes and blue indicates relatively low volume of passes.
Despite less possession (see Figure 5), NSW Pride managed to come out on top. NSW’s emphasis on counterattack and the pursuit of field goals proved decisive. NSW has the highest field goal efficiency in the competition (converting 33% of its shots into field goals during the first four rounds of the competition. In this match, NSW Pride’s two field goals and two conversions was enough to secure the win. Although, Perth’s low penalty corner efficiency, which was well below the past two rounds, contributed to the outcome. Perth scored just one goal from six penalty corner phases (and eleven penalty corners overall).
Figure 5: Share of passing activity from general play (used as a proxy for share of possession)