Ten MLS Goalkeepers Who Could Get Selected in the Expansion Draft

Bill Reno September 14, 2016

In December, MLS will host their tenth expansion draft to welcome in Atlanta and Minnesota. In the previous nine drafts, seven of thirteen new teams selected a goalkeeper so there's a decent chance we'll see at least one goalkeeper selected. Atlanta needs two more goalkeepers - they have already signed a twenty-three year old Greek-American goalkeeper, Alexander Tambakis - while Minnesota still need to pen three.

Expansion teams are looking for one of two things when selecting a goalkeeper in an expansion draft. First, if they can get a starter at a reasonable price, they will pick them up. The "reasonable price" varies from team to team, but teams can definitely be pushed away if a player is wanting too much, regardless of how good he is. Expansion teams are allowed to renegotiate contracts with selected players but if they can't agree on a salary, it's a wasted pick. Typically teams do their homework going into the draft to avoid the problem. The second route a team can look when selecting a goalkeeper is picking up a cheap, reliable backup. A backup makes around 60-80k in 2016 and if either team has another starter in mind, it makes sense to grab a goalkeeper to solidify the position if the money lines up.

No team has released names for the expansion draft yet so it's hard to say who will and won't be protected. On top of that, each team will only get five picks each this year, so it's not unlikely that both will pass on goalkeepers entirely. However, there are a number of goalkeepers we could see getting selected in the expansion draft.

1. Sean Johnson

The five-timed capped goalkeeper is most likely on his way out of Chicago. Johnson hails from Georgia so it would make sense geographically-speaking for Atlanta to pick up the goalkeeper. However, after another mediocre year at $250,000, neither team is exactly foaming at the mouth to select him. If Johnson agrees to a pay cut, or if one of the teams is willing to spend big, Johnson could see himself relocate for 2017.

2. Zac MacMath

It'll come down to the cost but the twenty-five year old has made it clear he wants to play. Most would agree that MacMath has reached the quality to start for an MLS team and at $140,000, he isn't a bad buy. If MacMath isn't selected in the expansion draft, he'll probably leave Colorado soon after either way. There's a place for MacMath to play, it might be with the new expansions or it might be elsewhere.

3. Joe Willis

Willis has filled in for Deric wonderfully this season and true to backup goalkeepers' nature in MLS, he has gone completely overlooked by almost everyone. He's a cheaper alternative to Johnson/MacMath and has shown he can start for a team with causing little worry. At $94,500, any team would benefit from having Willis in goal.

4. Alec Kann

Kann has been in the league for a while but it wasn't until last year that the mustached custodian finally got his first start. Now he's picked up seven starts for Sporting Kansas City and at $63,000, a team could roll the dice with ease. He'd most likely be a strong number two in the goalkeeper chart, with a chance at pushing for the starting spot like he's done with SKC.

5. Travis Worra

Worra continues to defy the odds. Undrafted out of college, he's played for DC now thirteen times. Granted, he's not completely polished, but at $53,000, the expansions teams aren't going to find a better rate for someone who's played as much as Worra has. He'll be a work in the making but could easily pay off.

Five other names to keep an eyes on

6. Cody Cropper - $70,000-90,000 - We don't know what Cropper signed for yet but it's doubtful New England brought him in just to lose him in an expansion draft. He's from Minnesota, so heading there makes sense on paper. Hypothetically a deal could be made between the two teams to benefit both sides, like how Portland covered a lot of Donovan Ricketts' contract when Orlando selected him.

7. Ryan Meara - $75,200 - Meara is most likely not going anywhere but to be fair, there were rumors of RBNY trying to trade him last SuperDraft. Robles still has time with the Red Bulls and Meara may be eyeing a starting spot somewhere else.

8. John McCarthy - $79,000 - McCarthy clearly appreciates being at Philadelphia but Philadelphia are committed to Andre Blake. If McCarthy is looking out, this would be his shot.

9. Brad Stuver - $63,000 - If either team has done their homework, they'll know Stuver is more than a competent backup. He's worked with Canadian goalkeeping legend Pat Onstad in a very tough system at Columbus and should be able to translate to another team with ease.

10. Jeff Attinella - $90,000 - It's not clear how much time Rimando has left but it can't be long. Attinella knows this and will be given a shot at starting for RSL in a year or two at most. If Attinella wants out, Atlanta or Minnesota could use him but it'll be a gamble leaving a mostly-sure situation with RSL.

Understanding Breakaways in MLS

Bill Reno August 30, 2016

It seems like every weekend we catch a goalkeeper getting scored on in a 1v1 situation only to hear the commentator describe the play as "nothing he could do". For most, a goalkeeper that saves a breakaway attempt has done the same as saving a penalty kick. However Gary Neville has a different standard for goalkeepers in 1v1s.

Video should start at 4:37

Neville's comments are from almost two years ago, so it's not exactly new information, not to mention he's citing goalkeepers that date back to the 1980s. While he does name the EPL's top goalkeepers of all-time when setting his standard for goalkeeping, he still makes an interesting point for goalkeepers: the advantage is on your side. Goalkeepers should be tell the strikers "you beat me" and not giving them an easy out.

When looking at MLS's "best saves", it's no secret that extension saves are valued so highly within the league. MLS lauds goalkeepers for their athleticism and ability for clawing saves out of the top corners. Unfortunately there is a shortage of appreciation for goalkeepers who compose themselves in 1v1s. What qualifies a "good" save in a 1v1 and what are some common mistakes? I don't have stats on 1v1 situations - and if someone does I'd be glad to list them here - but for the most part there are three problems we see with MLS goalkeepers in 1v1 situations.

Approach

There are several intricate details within a goalkeeper's approach (angle play, starting position, noticing striker tendencies, etc) but specifically we are covering a goalkeeper's strategy and ability to control the situation. The most common tactic for MLS goalkeepers is to rush out as fast as they can and slide through the ball before the striker can get a shot off. This aggressive strategy can work as it cuts down the angle and can even intimidate a striker but there are situations where patience and staying on their feet is the correct choice. Luis Robles made a fantastic save against Cyle Larin back in July.

Robles comes up big to deny Canadian Messi. pic.twitter.com/hYZ6kyWHAV
— Total MLS (@TotalMLS) July 14, 2016

Robles realizes he will not reach the ball before Larin, which is well outside the box. Robles uses negative movement - shuffling backwards towards his own goal - to control the the play for a few reasons. First, he gives himself room to go forward in his own box. If he sits a top of the box, he risks a handball outside the box. Second, the pressure is now on Larin, instead of Robles. Robles only has to get set and react. If Larin takes a big touch, the situation defuses. If Larin tries to round Robles, a defender likely spoils the attempt for Larin. Robles also helps himself on saving the possible chip (by being able to continue going backwards if Larin decides to try it) but also removes the likelihood of a chip, which is typically seen as a last ditch effort by a striker. If Robles rushes out or tries to cut down the angle here, he only hurts himself in this situation. He makes the correct decision and ends up with the save, something most MLS goalkeepers would struggle with doing.

Let's look at a time when rushing out wasn't the preferred choice.

Video should start at 0:20

Blake notices the obvious pass to Kaka, who is running into the middle of the 18, and tries to surprise Kaka by running out quickly. Kaka has his head originally turned away from goal and could be shocked by this if he was not Brazilian. Instead, Kaka takes a great turn on the ball. As Kaka notices Blake charging out, he starts to round him with his next touch. Blake throws on the brakes as quick as he can but ends up tripping Kaka and drawing the penalty. While you could argue that Kaka goes down easy, the problem from the goalkeeper's part is that Blake is out of control and hasn't assessed the situation correctly. There are three defenders in the area and Blake is by no means guaranteed the ball. For someone who is so good at extension saves, it would make sense for Blake to sit out of this one and try his hand with the shot from distance. If Blake shows a little more patience, he has a much greater chance of saving the shot.

Some more examples of this, if you're looking for them:

Bill Hamid goes for a slide when he needs to stay up higher.
Shep Messing describes Luis Robles' goal as "nothing he can do" as he hesitates to make a decision.

Timing

The second aspect of this is the reaction time of the goalkeeper. This is less about reflexes and more about being set, although both play a role. The previous point looking at the approach of a goalkeeper is centered around the mental game plan while this is referring to the physical preparation. Sometimes 1v1 saves incorporate both of these aspects. Sometimes only one, depending on the situation.

One of the easiest goalkeepers to beat is a moving goalkeeper. If they're carelessly charging forward or are just moving for moving's sake, there are a variety of options for a striker to put the ball in the back of the net. A good example of this can be found back in July, on Josh Saunders' first two conceded goals against New York Red Bulls. Highlights here or click on the pictures for a closer look.

On the first goal, Saunders is caught out of rhythm on the play. The shot is taken as he moves forward vertically, leaving him in the dust. While he is cutting down the angle by moving forward, he is doing so at the risk of not being able to break out horizontally, which is what the shot calls for. He never gets set and instead ends up flapping his limbs at a ball that really isn't that far from his body. As he is moving forward, he is alternating his weight on each step. This is fine as long as there is a final set position that evenly balances out his weight so he can step out or at least fall to one side. Instead, the shot is taken when Saunders is stepping forward with his left foot, which is why it ends up oddly in the air. If he limits his steps forward and gets set, he can make this save.

The second goal is not a 1v1 situation, but I wanted to highlight the problem of not being set or in rhythm with the shot. The header is taken about eight yards from goal but the screen shot is when Saunders finally gets his right foot planted. The ball is now 3-4 yards from goal and Saunders not only can't move in time, but is the recipient of the rarely seen dial up internet joke.

Things faster than Saunders' reflexes: dial up Internet, your girl when she gets ready, a sloth. #NYisRED #NYvNYC pic.twitter.com/mDabSIkNQv
— Eduardo Mendez (@Mendez_FC) July 24, 2016

To be clear, there are times to sprint to attack the ball. If the striker is out of control or is close enough to goal, a goalkeeper needs to attack the ball. But there are also situations when a goalkeeper needs to stay on their feet. An incorrect, aggressive sprint at the ball causes two problems. First, the goalkeeper will put themselves in a bad situation that can lead to a penalty kick, a chip shot that easily trickles in, or to giving up a more favorable position in exchange for a less favorable. The movement needs to control the situation as much as possible, not result in conceding ground. Second, the excessive movement negates reactions and turns the goalkeeper into a moving wall. If the ball is not struck into it, the goalkeeper cannot extend out to make the save in time because he is moving so much.

Typically when a goalkeeper is moving too much, it is when he is running at the striker but goalkeepers can be moving too much laterally as well. The same principle applies that if a goalkeeper is moving too much to the side, he cannot get set for the shot. Frei falls victim of having too much lateral movement against Portland in July. He is crossing the goal mouth to get in the ideal spot for the shot, but he is so out of control that a skipped ball not far from the middle of the goal is unsaveable. If he controls his movement, he can cover both posts of goal more efficiently.

Body Shape

Goalkeeper guru Justin Bryant steps in to write about a goalkeeper's body shape to give us a historical perspective and observe the finer details of a proper slide. He writes the first three paragraphs while I provide an example to watch. Feel free to tweet at Justin with all your goalkeeper questions.

Bill Hamid with the spread leg Spanish K approach

Goalkeeper body shape when dealing with 1v1 situations has undergone a dramatic evolution in the last decade-plus. A generation ago, most goalkeepers handled almost every 1v1 situation the same way: with a hands-first dive, in an attempt to smother, block, or claim the ball off the foot of an attacker. This can still be an effective technique when the attacker has taken a poor touch and the ball is there to be won; but when facing a composed opponent with the ball under control, it presents a very low barrier to the attacker, one which good players have little difficulty beating with a simple dink or chip. It also carries the significant risk of giving away a penalty if the goalkeeper fails to get a touch on the ball (although the recent change in the law means this is no longer an automatic sending-off). For me, the chief drawback is that it commits the goalkeeper to a single course of action, with no possibility to adjust, should the attacker take an extra touch or change direction.

In the 2000s, a generation of Spanish and Portuguese goalkeepers began popularizing a new way to handle 1v1s. The goalkeeper stays on their feet, advancing with small but fast steps, keeping the upper body upright while dropping the lower body close to the ground, with the hands in a blocking position to either side of the body. This technique, which originated in futsal, goes by various names, but I call it the Spanish K Barrier. Some call it the Starfish, but to me, this refers to the technique contrived by Peter Schmeichel when facing a point-blank shot: jumping and spreading all four limbs equally. This can be effective, too - Peter’s son Kasper does it well today, as does Joe Hart - but, again, it’s best used in point-blank shot situations, not when an attacker is advancing on goal with the ball under control.

The K Barrier’s two main advantages over the hands-first slide are that it presents a physically larger barrier to the attacker, and it gives the goalkeeper a chance to keep adjusting and improvising in the event the attacker tries to dribble, or the situation changes. By dropping the lower body but keeping the upper body upright, you take away the option of the easy chip/dink finish. A technique which keeps you on your feet also makes it far less likely you will give away a penalty, since there is no single ‘all or nothing’ moment of commitment, as there is with the hands-first slide. But it’s the ability to adjust, to improvise, and to ‘battle’ the attacker which makes makes me favor this technique. A goalkeeper who can use their feet to close space with the attacker, but keep enough distance between them to be an effective barrier and be able to react to a shot, all while remaining upright, is going to have an excellent success rate with 1v1s.

Bill Hamid and Steve Clark are MLS's largest proponents of the K Barrier. Here is Clark implementing the slide.

Clark does a wonderful job of avoiding any of the three common mistakes listed earlier. He reads the play well, seeing the striker is not going to hit it first time and will instead take a lengthy windup. Clark's movement is quick and in time with the shot. If the shooter is looking to round Clark or lay off, Clark can adjust as need be. The situation is lined up well for the goalkeeper to come straight at the ball and Clark makes the correct save on the play.

Conclusion

Most goals that are scored on a goalkeeper are ones they can do nothing about. They can be outnumbered in a counter, their defense can give up possession in a poor territory, a striker can make a phenomenal shot. The examples go on and on. But in the realm of breakaway situations, goalkeepers are actually empowered a great deal. It truly is a 1v1 and both sides have a their chance of executing their task. The goalkeeper actually has the benefit of not needing to make a save. They can force the shooter wide or stall out the play for added defenders. Every situation is different but for the most part, Gary Neville is right that elite goalkeepers should make more saves than concede goals. Tim Howard - USA's best 1v1 goalkeeper ever - was excellent at reading plays and knowing when to strike and when to hold his ground. It was not happenstance he reached this point. He simply was very intentional in beating the striker in the scenario.

“I’ve got quite a simple theory on 1-on-1s, a goalkeeper should save seven or eight out of ten. The idea that every 1-on-1 that goes in the back of your net... we never hear someone say “it’s a goalkeeper error.” We always say “defenders let him run.” Oh course it’s a goalkeeping error, her should save the majority of them. The best goalkeepers, Schmeichel, van der Sar, Seaman, Neuer, save the majority of their 1-on-1s.”

— Gary Neville

MLS goalkeepers, fans, and media alike are far too comfortable defaulting a 1v1 to the striker's favor. There are several factors that are in play that a goalkeeper can do to help his situation. A number of goals are too soft for goalkeepers, despite having no defenders in the surrounding area. Yes, breakaways are not ideal and the blame mostly goes to a defensive lapse, but a main component of a goalkeeper's job is being prepared in these scenarios. If the goalkeeper - or fan, or writer - is simply hoping the play just happens to work out in the goalkeeper's favor, they are not giving the goalkeeper enough responsibility for the outcome.

Women's International Elo Ratings - FAQ

Bill Reno August 21, 2016

To view the latest rankings, You can view the ratings here.

What is Elo?

The Elo rating system is a rating system that awards points to teams based on competitive play. Originally designed for chess, Elo has since been adopted for other sports and has been viewed as an alternative ranking system to FIFA's rankings. The general idea is centered around stealing points from your opponents and adding them to your own score. If you beat a strong team, you take a large number of points. If you defeat an inferior team, you take only a few points from them. (Wikipedia)

FIFA has their own ratings for the women's game. Why create Elo ratings?

Most people are familiar with the Elo ratings we use on the men's side and FIFA's women's ratings are generally similar, they just use a different approach. FIFA actually uses a type of Elo ratings, as there isn't a "right" way to do compile them. However FIFA's approach to the women's ratings creates a noticeably different outcome than the method used for the men's Elo ratings. These rankings here are made to have a mirror to the men's rankings, without the headaches that FIFA institutes in theirs.

It should be noted that FIFA men's ratings are done different than their ratings on the women's side. It's not clear why they wouldn't use one system for both. Regardless, I'll refer to these ratings here as Elo because they're more in line with the commonly accepted version.

How are FIFA and Elo different?

In the top rankings, the order of teams are similar from one ranking system to another, although the gap between teams is different. As of August 2016, number ten rated Canada is 230 points behind the US in FIFA's rankings. In the Elo ratings, the gap is almost twice as much at 400, from USA and (#10) North Korea.

Beyond the top teams, there is a large discrepancy between rankings for the lower rated nations. Nations can regularly be rated a difference of 40 spots between systems and as high as 90. This is due to the starting rating, which will affect how many points teams gain or lose when they earn a result. Sometimes FIFA will give starting ratings as high as 2000, while other times they will start teams at 400, like they did with Mauritius. While starting ratings eventually lose their importance after hundreds of matches, most nations have not played a hundred games and the 1600 difference between teams can have major implications on future ratings. Elo starting ratings range from 600 to 1800 and are based on each nation's performance to avoid big swings in ratings.

The specific approach between the ratings are fairly different. For example, FIFA rankings can actually take away points from a winner if they do not win by enough, which Elo does not do. There also isn't a difference in winning 6-0 as there is 40-0 in FIFA's ratings.

Additionally there are odd restrictions to FIFA's rankings on the women's side. First, it only reaches back to 2003, despite having most of all international games on their site. Secondly, there is a stipulation that if a country does not play a game within eighteen months, they immediately drop to the bottom. As I write this, Argentina has recently dropped 99 spots to last place. (Technically they are not rated although they would be 133, after Botswana at 132.) Although apparently this is only temporarily, as Argentina are no strangers to the quick maneuver.

Overall, FIFA ratings favor European, Asian, and South American teams while North American and African teams are rated higher in Elo ratings. FIFA originally rated countries whose national team programs started earlier much higher than those that started late, while many of those older teams have low winning percentages (Estonia at 31%, but 87 spots higher in FIFA than Elo, as of October 2017) and have fallen down in the Elo ratings. Newer teams have not lost as many games and are still rated middle of the road, while FIFA has already downrated them before playing a dozen matches.

What are limitations of these Elo ratings?

Probably the biggest point for discussion is the base rating for a country. Every team has to start with a rating and this can range greatly. On the men's side, Elo ratings range from 1800 (great starting spot) to 600 (very bad). After a few hundred games, the starting point is relatively pointless and would only change a rating 200 games later by peanuts. However for teams that are low on games played, it does have a larger influence.

To give a clearer example, US women's team has played around 600 games, giving them a rating of 2176. Their base rating, before they played any games, was 1600. If I drop their base rating of 1600 to 600 their overall rating only drops to 2161. After 600 some odd games, their rating gets finalized.

An example of a country that hasn't played several hundred games is Equatorial Guinea. They have at Elo rating of 1231 over 44 games with a base rating of 900. Their rating of 1231 puts them 32nd in the world, but FIFA has them at 50st. FIFA has given them a lower base rating than a 900. If we move their base rating to 1200, they move to 1272, 29th overall. So to be honest I am not quite sure why Equatorial Guinea is so low in FIFA rankings. But all that to say, base ratings were tricky to finalize but ultimately not a big deal for countries who have played at least 50 games, which was most teams.

The only other hurdle I ran into was the K factor that Elo ratings use. The K factor weighs each game in importance. A friendly is basically worth one third of a World Cup game and everything else between that varies. (FIFA also weighs games less than Elo.) Again, there's reasoning behind doing so, it's just going to change the outcome if the math is different. (Read more about them Elo game weights here.)

How do the women's Elo ratings compare to the men's?

It is no secret that the men's game has more depth than the women's side and now we can see that more concretely. The top forty teams are separated by 400 points on the men's side, while the women are almost at 1000 points from USA to fortieth ranked Ivory Coast. Even inside the top ten we can see the disparity as USA is 400 points higher than North Korea.

However the women's Elo rankings are designed after the men's so they can be somewhat comparable. The lowest base Elo rating is 600, despite some 40 teams on the women's side being south of 600. The maximum base rating for the women's side is 1600.

How do Elo ratings compare between different generations?

Elo ratings are a system to show how dominate one team is at one given time. We can't directly compare the men's game to the women's as the landscapes are vastly different but even over time, it is tricky to compare the 1999 USWNT to the 2015 squad. Both teams get over 2100 points but it is in reference to their competition. For example, if the rest of the world - for whatever reason - became significantly worse over time, then a 2100 against weaker teams would not be the same as a 2100 when the rest of the world was better. Of course it is tough to say objectively if teams are better or worse over time, but it should be kept in mind when comparing two different periods of time.

How many games do you have in your database?

Currently I have 8677 games that start from April 1, 1920 to July 31, 2016.

Player Journal: Erin Scott, Sophomore at Creighton

Bill Reno August 10, 2016

Erin Scott joins us for our third collegiate goalkeeper contributing a player journal for their season. Scott enters her sophomore year after Creighton went 10-10 last year, which she started every game as a freshman. After a successful season with FC Dallas' WPSL team, Scott revisits her summer and discusses Creighton's upcoming season. Click here to read the other goalkeepers' player journals as they all start their season.

Not too long ago you finished your summer season with FC Dallas' WPSL team, where y'all won the Southwest conference and allowed less than a goal a game. Most college players don't play in the summer so what made you decide to play with FC Dallas? What did you gain from playing for FC Dallas?

Playing in the WPSL with FC Dallas over the summer was easily one of the best things I have done to prepare for an upcoming D1 college season. This year was FC Dallas’ first year competing in the WPSL and Ben Waldrum put together a very strong roster in a fairly short amount of time. I have been involved in the ECNL program at FC Dallas throughout high school so this was a great opportunity for me. Playing this past summer not only helped keep my touch on the ball sharp but also helped me stay mentally engaged in games all summer as well. Playing in games and keeping that mental sharpness that a game demands at a high level is such an important factor that generally goes missing for some in the summer. Yes, keeper training and training with a team is great but nothing can truly replace the experience you get from playing in a game.

The group of girls that played with FC Dallas this summer were truly world class. Adapting to a new team and adjusting to a different style of play than I am used to allowed me to not only develop as a player but become more well rounded. I noticed that I was holding myself accountable more often because there was a very high standard in training sessions and games. FC Dallas’ women’s side is going in a positive direction and talks of a NWSL team is a strong possibility for the future which is very exciting. There was so much talent on our team this summer and going undefeated was an exhilarating feeling. We finished our season 15-1, suffering our one and only loss to the Chicago Red Star’s Reserves in the Regional Championship game.

The WPSL is a massive league with over 100 teams. Some of the teams are tied to professional teams and others fold after just being around a year. Describe your experience with the league. What's something outsiders don't realize or understand about the league?

I think the WPSL is a great league that will continue to move in the right direction. Although certain teams may have more talent than others, I feel there is a high level of competition throughout. I feel that many don’t realize how high the level of competition truly is. We had a very talented roster which included players like Monica Alvarado who is on Mexico’s national team and has played in a world cup. We also had many Houston Dash reserves playing with us throughout the season, many of which were called up to play on the full team in games for the Dash. Between the international talent and the professional talent, the quality of play was phenomenal. Kelsey Devonshire, who has also played professional soccer, was the other goalkeeper on our roster and being able to work with her this summer was extremely beneficial for me. Playing alongside a professional forced me to push myself to a higher standard that was expected. Overall I think the WPSL presents a great opportunity for anyone looking to continue to play over the summer.

Last year Creighton finished 2-7 in the Big East. What needs to happen this year to make sure Creighton reaches the Big East conference tournament?

This year we received a large freshman class with very talented players who will be able to come in and make a difference in our season. The mentality of our team is great and the competitive environment makes training very enjoyable. Although we are only one week into preseason, I can tell we are headed in the right direction. Commitment, dedication, and accountability are going to be huge parts of this season. It is crucial that we all hold ourselves and our teammates accountable. This season we need to make sure that we clean up silly mistakes. We have been working on our defensive shape as well as being more aggressive all over the field. We conceded many goals off of preventable errors that we need to work hard to fix this season. We also need to make sure that we capitalize on our opportunities this year. I believe everyone is committed to our goal and we are all working extremely hard each day to get better. I truly believe that we are going to be a very dangerous competitor in the Big East this season.