Okay, through game 1 of the LA series, Bob Gansler has coached 123 regular and playoff MLS games with Kansas City. Counting 2 Shootout Wins and 4 Shootout Losses as Ties, I come up with the following 47 wins 47 losses 29 ties most common scores 1-2 loss (14) 0-0 tie (13) 2-1 win (12) 1-0 win (10) 1-1 tie (10) 2-0 win (9) margin of victory or loss 29 ties 51 1 goal (28-23) 22 2 goals (12-10) 12 3 goals (5-7) 5 4 goals (0-5) 2 5 goals (1-1) 1 6 goal (1-0) 1 7 goal (0-1) that's 80/123 that are 0-1 goals MLS has averaged over 3 goals/game for all but one year. Wizard games average only 2.77 goals (1.31 for, 1.46 against) We have only scored more than 3 goals twice in Gansler's reign, but it has only been done to us 9 times. I can make a spreadsheet available if someone wants to play with the numbers more. I have opponent and date data with each entry in case someone wants to do team by team pivot tables. Off the cuff, it definitely reinforces the "Bunker Bob" tag. We are a .500 team that scores first then bunkers. Only twice have we blown teams away.
Do you have scores for other teams or the league as a whole? For example, what % of MLS games are decided by 0 or 1 goals? What annoys me is that Gansler doesn't change his tactics based on the players he has. We don't have the gk or defense to pull this off anymore. As an aside, I must confess to finding bunker ball a thing of beauty if it can be done well. For example, the 2000 MLS Cup or the England-Italy WCQ98.
That's definitely off the cuff...You can't accurately draw that conclusion just from those stats. Reilly makes a good point about not looking at these in a vaccumm. But, the can was opened so let's do look at them by themselves. It should make sense that a "bunkering" team would have more zeros on its' side of the scoreline. The only score in the top 6 modal scores is 0-0 tie. All the other top 6 modal scores have KC scoring at least once. To repeat, that's 5 or 6 most common (modal) scores that have KC scoring. At what point can we say, "KC goes forward with regularity". Even if you don't agree with the above statement and counter with, "KC is a bunker team - just look at the opponents scores"; you get 3 of 6 modal scores being "0" for the opponent. To me that signals the existence of an extended period of successful defense. "Bunkering" or "defensive excellence" over a long period? I believe bunkering implies, nay, requires a statistical lack of opportunities. It should also produce 0-0/1-0 scorelines more often than normal. With only 27 of 123 results having this scoreline, KC's at 22%. Out of line? Probably not. Also, KC is near the MLS top in chances. With the exception of a couple of nationally televised games late in 2000, neither of these things exist in BG's tenure. Again my contention is KC has failed to finish at a high level since BG came aboard. Numbers back this up. One more goal out of every 15 shots and KC is the best offense in the history of MLS. LA minus Ruiz and ref charity is dc. Ifs and buts... The one stat that stands out to me is this one. BG is 40-33 in games decided by 2 goals or less. At the very least that's winning soccer. BG's teams do get blown out occasionally. Many of those have come at times where even objectively, the schedule may have had an influence on things. Also, why do blowouts happen? Why do goals happen? One common way is that when teams go forward and fail to finish, many times they are caught forward and give up counters. Any arguement that KC certainly fits that description? I didn't think so. What's the problem then, bunkering? No. Playing defensively? No. Getting caught forward and/or lack of finishing? Maybe.
One other thing that stood out to me is the 7-14 record for games decided by 3 goals or more. Ouch. A possible explanation: Some of you know I played club level volleyball in college. We occasionally played NCAA/NAIA teams and somtimes were simply outgunned. The important thing is there was a clear difference in offensive ability. Everyone in the building knew it. Once our team was behind in a game by a certain margin, it sometimes became clear we didn't have the ability to overcome. Psychologically, it was tough for all 6 guys to not just bail on Game 1 and regruoup for Game 2, etc. KCW isn't immune. Complicating it further is this: In volleyball regardless of score, basic formations don't change much. In soccer obviously they do. My point: You never start a game thinking you are going to lose, but sometimes you are forced to realize it before the game is over, so maybe you let down that little bit. That "little bit" is enough for big swings on the amateur level much less pros. You can make an understandable argument that coaching is responsible for this phenominon. I don't agree. I believe most "heart" doesn't come from coaching. Is there any question that KC 2000 played with more heart? I believe that came from the knowledge that Tony and the D would hold anyone and Molnar would poach the winner eventually. KC 2002 is missing these elements to a degree, causing the "let downs". Find an assassin (expecially one capable of defense up top) and a ref that's played the game, and most perceived problems go away quickly in BG's system. Igor finishes in LA to go up 3-1 and maybe KC does not panic and rolls over LA, who knows. Here's another thing. Twellman plays in KC and BG's the second coming and next Nat coach. It's a fine line.
I don't see how you correlate a "0" for the Wizards score as "bunkering". You usually only bunker after you have the "lead". The Wizards score first, then shut it down. It worked in 2000, since then we've inevitably given up the tying, and often losing goals. The fact that Wizard games average nearly 1/2 goal a game less than league average show that we take the air out of the ball.
What a bunch of crap. KC just won 4-1. They played the exact same game they have been attempting to play all year, only tonight LA gave them space and KC put it in the net more often. When a team finishes chances it's a good offensive show, when they don't it has to be "bunkering". That's crap!
It's bunkering when you replace Simutenkov with Burns. It's not bunkering when you replace Simutenkov with Fabbro.