As promised, here is part 2 with some somewhat disjointed thoughts about the individual players’ statistics. The numbers in the parentheses are excluding the 14-0 and 13-0 wins during Olympic qualifying. More detailed methodology notes are included at the end of the post.

Heath College Aggregate (4 Years) 2012 USWNT USWNT Aggregate (2009 – 2012) Minutes per Game 83.22 59.14 (59.81) 48.41 (48.50) Minutes per Goal 407.32 325.25 (418.67) 377.60 (460.75) Minutes per Assist 241.84 216.83 (209.33) 236.00 (230.75)

Heath’s minutes per game shows that she was crucially important at UNC. Put in comparison, in this season, only Morgan’s stats, O’Hara, Solo, and Wambach’s adjusted stats can compare to the amount that Heath was utilized at UNC. As someone who was part of 3 championships that indicates how crucial of a fulcrum Heath was for their team and perhaps why Sundhage believed Heath could transform into the future of the USWNT. On the USWNT Heath has outperformed her college performance. The difference is a little less impressive when looking at the adjusted numbers but they still either hover right around her college productivity or have improved since then. Given that she was taken 1st in the 2010 WPS draft even with those less flashy numbers and the fact that she has improved shows that she is just beginning to reach her potential; playing with great targets and in an even better environment doesn’t hurt either (even when considering the great atmosphere at UNC with 3 championships).

Morgan College Aggregate (4 Years) 2012 USWNT USWNT Aggregate (2010 – 2012) Minutes per Game 66.43 78.42 (83.08) 55.19 (56.47) Minutes per Goal 112.20 84.96 (86.69) 86.03 (87.27) Minutes per Assist 297.00 113.28 (142.43) 139.29 (169.41)

Morgan is utilized more in today’s USWNT than her college team which is rather remarkable given that she wasn’t on a team of superstars (although was pulled away from regular college play to national team duty). Her statistics are much better now possibly due to better service, better play, or even the fact that she no longer is the only threat to score. Most impressive is the fact that she has cut her assist rate in half. Once again this probably reflects both an improvement in her own play as well as the fact that she now has some of the best targets to assist.

Cheney College Aggregate (4 Years) 2012 USWNT USWNT Aggregate (2009 – 2012) Minutes per Game 75.57 68.88 (69.0) 60.25 (61.66) Minutes per Goal 94.73 895.50 (1657) 245.00 (287.75) Minutes per Assist 216.96 179.10 (331.2) 193.42 (287.75)

Given their roles today it is rather surprising that Cheney had a better strike and assist rate than Morgan in college. Her strike rate was the best of all of the college players in this study at practically a goal per 90 minutes. While that has declined on the USWNT, her assist rate (which was already one of the best during college) has gotten better and was already one of the best in college (although if you do not consider the first 2 blowout games her numbers are much more pedestrian). Her strike rate decrease particularly this year may reflect the fact that she now occupies a role that is further from the goal and has somewhat changed her focus to creating goals rather than scoring them.

Rodriguez College Aggregate (4 Years) 2012 USWNT USWNT Aggregate (2009 – 2012) Minutes per Game 72.90 31.71 (28.45) 49.24 (47.70) Minutes per Goal 229.93 95.13 (313.00) 171.06 (209.15) Minutes per Assist 284.67 190.30 (626.00) 361.11 (543.8)

We’re under the assumption that all strikers should have an amazingly prolific strike rate and get upset when they do not score constantly. Rodriguez led her team to a national championship and yet had a fairly pedestrian production rate throughout her college career. Rodriguez’s critics may be surprised to see that her USWNT strike rate over 4 years is actually better than at USC – with or without those blowout games from earlier this year. Are her 2012 statistics inflated due to the blowout wins? Yes, but her aggregate numbers show the more consistent general trend. The way that Rodriguez plays is quite possibly just how she plays and perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised when she does so.

Leroux College Aggregate (4 Years) 2012 USWNT Minutes per Game 75.25 17.95 (16.60) Minutes per Goal 110.89 37.70 (66.4) Minutes per Assist 526.74 377.00 (332.0)

It is difficult to draw conclusions about Leroux since there is very limited information for her due to the fact that she has not played more than one USWNT season. Her college aggregate minutes per assist statistic however suggests that she is a true forward as one who scores goals and not one who creates them (her current season on the USWNT also supports this theory).





O’Reilly College Aggregate (4 Years) 2012 USWNT USWNT Aggregate (2009 – 2012) Minutes per Game 68.49 53.61 (54.00) 66.69 (65.81) Minutes per Goal 107.66 205.50 (396.00) 406.19 (477.13) Minutes per Assist 129.64 137.00 (198.00) 212.76 (254.47)

O’Reilly had the best assist rate by far in college and her minutes per goal was also consistently one of the best (it should be noted that O’Reilly is a bit older than the other players and even within a few years there has been increasingly more parity in the college game). However, this also reflects the fact that she played as a forward up until Sundhage instituted her as a flank midfielder. Unfortunately US Soccer’s website only has statistics up until 2009 so comparing O’Reilly’s UNC numbers to her current numbers is not exactly comparing apples to apples. However if you compare her cumulative USWNT rate to Heath’s you’ll find that they are rather similar thereby demonstrating the effect that one’s position plays in their statistics.

What’s the general take away from all of this? In general it shows that often even the best players from college can improve but also that when you have more talented players around, the goals and assists are more likely to be spread around as well. This is certainly the case for the minutes as only Morgan plays more now than she did in college. Mostly though I think it gives us a broader perspective to understand each player’s play in the context of what they were capable of producing back in college and, as always, some fun factoids.



Methodology Notes

I compiled statistics listed on each player’s college athletics’ website. Some schools (such as UNC) provided more detailed statistics while others were rather random in when they provided stats and when they didn’t. For those schools that did not provide season-long statistics I compiled their statistics by pulling the relevant information from the game-by-game summary statistics. Occasionally these statistics did not include the minutes played in which case I used that season’s average minutes per game. (If this exercise taught me anything it was that institutions need to be more consistent in their sports reporting.)

The adjusted USWNT statistics do not include the games against the Dominican Republic and Guatemala. While there are sometimes blowouts in the college game never did I see a 14-0 or 13-0 drubbing. I chose to keep the 8-0 win over Costa Rica in because even just as recently as in the NCAA playoffs there are games with 9-2 scorelines.

One caveat you should keep in the back of your mind is the fact that the college game is different from the international game. There are unlimited substitutions allowed (although you cannot enter in the same period that you have been subbed out) and the golden goal in overtime exists. While these are important facts to keep in mind I believe the general conclusions garnered from 4 seasons of play are still applicable.