Doug Starnes clocks in on this unseasonably cool May day to help you make sense of Saturday’s draw between Ft. Lauderdale Strikers and your Indy Eleven. Follow Doug on Twitter at @GrassInTheSky1.

I tend not to write these things until at least 24 hours after a match has been played. A lot of the time, what you think went wrong or right in a particular match is backed up by the statistics, but sometimes it isn’t and it doesn’t hurt to take a day or two to ask yourself, “Is that really what you think happened?” With concern to Saturday’s match, I’m glad I sat on it for a bit, especially with concern to what didn’t go well. More on that later. For now, let’s talk about what went right.

Jon Busch

Jon Busch went right. The veteran goalkeeper made 6 saves on the night and dealt with every cross that was his to deal with. His one potential slip up never realized itself because Maicon Santos, strangely, decided not to go to ground when it looked like he’d been fouled by an onrushing Busch in the box. Some may say that the Strikers were wasteful with their chances, and that may be true, but a goalkeeper can only save what’s shot at him and Jon Busch saved every single solitary thing that came his way. A spokesman’s deal for anti-virus software or home security systems or condoms could be in the works based solely on this performance. Busch did all of this in spite of the fact that he lost his father earlier in the week. In short, it was an epic performance – easily an all time NASL classic – and it is absolutely the reason Indy escaped Ft. Lauderdale with a valuable point. Take a moment to applaud Jon Busch, I’ll wait.

So what went wrong?

Deep Block Blues

It would be easy to argue Saturday’s draw was just another case of Indy struggling going forward. They did struggle going forward. However, this isn’t the first time this season that Ft. Lauderdale’s deep block defending has given a good team problems. As I wrote in the preview to this match, the Strikers are finding their feet as a formidable side and their low pressure, defend and counter system is working right now.

How often did Ft. Lauderdale allow Indy to swing the ball back-and-forth across the back line, maybe up to Larrea and back, and then clamp down once an entry pass crossed midfield or one of the back four carried the ball across midfield? A pattern of slow build up play emerged for Indy in the first half and, when nothing else was on, someone usually tried to pop a ball over the top to get behind Ft. Lauderdale’s back line. The problem was, with their deep block, there wasn’t any space there and the ball usually went out of bounds or to Diego Restrepo.

To beat a team playing this kind of system, the ball has to move quickly in and out and side to side. There has to be high tempo in the passing and there has to be a ton of movement off the ball. Neither of those things happened with any consistency for the Eleven Saturday evening and the result was a limited number of opportunities going forward. But that’s not new. Lots of teams struggle to break down that kind of defensive system. What was alarming Saturday, and the reason Indy should have lost the match, was the team’s inability to get close to the ball as Ft. Lauderdale ticked through the thirds on their way to shot after shot.

Out Bossed

Where Indy was thoroughly beaten Saturday was actually on the defensive side of the ball and in a particular way. When you’re looking at post match statistics in order to tease out the narrative of a match, the most telling stats are the ones where there is a huge difference between the two teams. It can be possession or shots or fouls, but usually there are one or two areas in which the teams were decidedly uneven. Such was the case Saturday night.

If you look at the team stats for the match, most of the numbers are actually quite even. Shots, passing accuracy, corners, offside, fouls…they all pretty much line up. So where was Indy was behind? Shots on target (6 to 2), Possession (55.2% to 44.8%), Aerial Duels won (62.5% to 37.5%), Passing accuracy in the opponent’s half (70.3% to 58.7%), and tackles won (80% to 61.5%). I would argue that the hots on target, possession, and passing accuracy stats all stem from Indy’s inability to get close to the ball, especially through midfield. Defensively, the team just got picked apart, especially in transition.

The interesting thing is that Vukovic, Janicki, Falvey, and Palmer all had very respectable defensive numbers. Pretty much everyone in front of them, however, got skinned. Consider the numbers:

Omar Gordon – 1 of 6 duels won

Gorka Larrea – 4 of 8 duels won, 0 for 1 in the tackle

Dylan Mares – 5 of 11 duels won, 1 for 2 in the tackle

Siniša Ubiparipović – 3 of 5 duels won, 1 for 1 in the tackle

Justin Braun – 2 of 7 duels won

Jair Reinoso – 3 of 9 duels won, 2 for 3 in the tackle

Opta defines a “duel” as a 50/50 ball. The way to read this that the players in front of the back four had 46 chances to win a contested ball in order to continue an attack or stop an attack and they were only able to do that 18 times out of those 46 chances. Essentially, they turned 50/50 balls into 40/60 balls.

The effect this has for a defend and counter team is that they can take advantage of perhaps 10% more transition opportunities. If there’s a ball to be won, we both go for it, and I win it, suddenly you’re out of the play defensively and I have space to find a pass. If I can do this 60% of the time to your 40%, I’m probably going to win (unless you have Jon Busch).

Takeaways

Lack of dynamic play in the final third and a lack of bite in midfield not withstanding, a point on the road is a brilliant result, especially when you could have lost 4 or 5 to nothing. Put that in the bank and don’t apologize for it. However, as Thomas Rongen pointed out in the telecast, Tim Hankinson may have partially solved the side’s attacking woes by playing a two front system, but he has yet to figure out what to do in Indy’s midfield.

The best pairing of the season thus far has been Brad Ring and Nicki Paterson, but there’s a certain amount of creative spark that is lost without someone like Ubiparipović or Mares in central midfield. The dream solution would be to find one player who can do what Ring and Paterson do together, shift to a diamond in midfield, and then let Mares or Ubiparipović create chances closer to goal. However, that kind of player doesn’t play in the NASL. Regardless, that seems to be the next hurdle for Hankinson to sort out. What does central midfield look like both in shape and personnel?