Reflections on the USA Men’s Team

Analyzing the performance and future of the team using statistics from World Championships

Before getting into this post, I’d like to give a special thank you to my first paid subscriber, Markus Akerland. Thank you for supporting my writing on Substack! If you’re interested in supporting my work consider upgrading to a paid subscription. Each new paid subscription will be sent a free gift!

---

The water polo world was treated to an excellent primer to the upcoming Olympic Games with the recently concluded World Championships in Doha. I would like to discuss some observations about the make-up of the USA men’s team based off of some conversations I’ve had since the tournament concluded, but wanted to first take the time to offer some general thoughts.

First, congratulations are in order for all the medalists (Croatia, Italy and Spain on the men’s side and USA, Hungary and Spain for the women). Congratulations as well to the final Olympic qualifiers on both the men’s and women’s sides. However, those qualifications do not come without a distressing caveat, the South African teams will not be attending the Olympics even though their teams have qualified. My condolences to the athletes and staff from South Africa. 

Lastly, a special congratulations should be extended to the athletes and staff of the US women’s team for earning an unprecedented 8th gold medal at this event. The continued excellence of that squad under the guidance of Adam Krikorian is one of the greatest achievements in sporting history. No team has been so dominant and maintained that dominance for so long. 

With those notes out of the way, let's get into some of the things I found interesting when looking at the official statistics from this event for the US men’s team.

---

One of the more interesting factors that World Aquatics tracks on their official scoresheet is the minutes played for each player. I find this statistic interesting to get an idea of the usage of individual players on the team and how much they are impacting the game in their time. The top six US players (excluding goalies) in average minutes played per game at the World Championships were:

1. Daube (23:51)

2. Irving (23:46)

3. Hooper (20:16)

4. R. Dodd (20:05)

5. Cupido (19:11) 

6. Bowen (17:44)

For those curious, Hallock would be 8th on the list for the USA, averaging just over 15 minutes per game. Also, his one game suspension does not impact this number  because he only suited up for 5 of the 6 possible games and those are what are used to determine his average. 

But, minutes played tells very little about how those players are using their minutes in the game. One way to look at that would be to see how the shots on the team are being distributed. Based on total shot attempts, here are the top 6 volume shooters for the US as well as their average attempts per game and shooting percentage:

1. Bowen (14/33, 5.5/gm, 42%)

2. Daube (14/33, 5.5/gm, 42%)

3. Irving (9/21, 3.5/gm, 43%)

4. R. Dodd (7/20, 3.3/gm, 35%)

5. Hooper (10/18, 3/gm, 56%)

6. Cupido (4/16, 2.6/gm, 25%)

Unlike the minutes calculation, the suspension to Hallock likely kept him off this list. In the 5 games he played, Hallock went 8/14 (57%) and averaged 2.8 shots per game. If he maintained those averages and played in the 6th game, he likely would have been 5th on this list. 

Building on those volume shooting numbers above, the official statistics note that the US had possession of the ball 261 times and 188 ended in a shot (72% of the total possessions). 66 of those possessions—a full quarter of them and 35% of the total shots the US took—ended in a shot from either Daube or Bowen. However, it should be noted as well that the US also turned the ball over 73 times in those 261 possessions, meaning 28% of the US possessions ended in a turnover. Comparing this to the teams in the top 8, this could certainly be an area for the US to focus on moving forward as the teams with the greatest success generally keep this percentage below 25. For reference, here are the percentages for the top 8 teams: CRO 22%, FRA 30%, GRE 21%, HUN 23%, ITA 22%, MNE 28%, SRB 27%, ESP 23%. 

In addition to overall shooting, the value of extra player situations and the shooting in those situations is also worth looking at. Here are the shooting splits for the top 6 American men in extra player situations:

1. Daube (5/13, 38%)

2. Bowen (5/10, 50%)

3. Hooper (6/9, 67%)

4. R. Dodd (⅜, 37%)

5. Obert (4/6, 67%)

6. D. Woodhead (¾, 75%), Irving (2/4, 50%), Cupido (¼, 25%)

Overall, the US had 72 extra player situations and scored 35 goals in those situations (49%). Here are the numbers for the top 8 teams in the tournament: CRO 56/89 (63%), FRA 30/72 (42%), GRE 25/49 (51%),HUN 28/56 (50%), ITA 28/70 (40%), MNE 33/66 (50%), SRB 35/66 (53%), ESP 30/54 (56%). True to the US game plan, the team is drawing exclusions at one of the highest rates in the world and converting those exclusions within the averages for the elite teams in the world. 

Which brings the discussion to penalties. Over the tournament, the US went 6/11 (55%) on penalty shots. The US shooters were: Daube (¾), Bowen (2/4), Irving (½), and R. Dodd (0/1). Eleven drawn penalties puts the US right at the overall average for the tournament; however, the US ranks almost last in goals scored from penalties with that abysmal 55% conversion rate (the lowest in the tournament for all teams by over 5%). I have written about this before so I won't spend too much time on it now, but the United States men’s team has a penalty problem. The overall conversion rate for penalties at World Championships was 78%. Unless the team can start to convert penalties at something approaching a world average rate (something like 65% or better), there is no way this team can compete for a medal. 

Let’s move from the offensive side of the ball to the defensive side and take a quick look at some goalie statistics for the tournament. With these stats, it should be noted that Holland played the bulk of the preliminary rounds whereas Weinberg manned the cage during the crossover and classification games. Holland saw 21 “action” shots and blocked 17 (80%), whereas Weinberg saw 19 and saved 10 (52%). Holland was scored on from center 5 times out of 6 shots (17%);  Weinberg saw 5 shots from center and blocked 4 (80%). Lastly on the extra man, Holland stopped 6/21 (28%) while Weinberg held teams to 7/15 (46%). It remains to be seen who will be the starter when the Games kick off in Paris, but I am of the mind that a firm decision needs to be made and communicated to the team soon. I’m partial to Weinberg (full disclosure: I’ve coached him quite a bit in ODP), but will have to wait for the decision just like everyone else.

One last small but interesting detail before this is wrapped up. The direct shot has largely been phased out of the game since the move to 6 meters and the other rule changes. This can be seen in the volume of those shots being taken. In Doha, teams only averaged ~6 6m direct shots over the course of the tournament or just about one per game. The outlier here is Italy who took 12, but when you have a player like di Fluvio who can go 6/6 maybe that's understandable. The USA, on the other hand, only took 6 direct shots the entire tournament, but did not score a single one of them.

The story of this tournament on the men’s side was that of the emergence of Thomas Vernoux of France. The radical success of the French team at this World Championships has been largely attributed to his outstanding performances all over the pool. Interestingly, this breakout occurred because the French coaching staff made the decision to move Vernoux—their best and most athletic player—from the center position to the left side. In doing so, they increased his average minutes played from just under 20 in Fukuoka to almost 28 minutes per game in Doha, earned a semifinal berth and Vernoux was runaway MVP of the World Championships. 

A savvy reader may have noticed that although Ben Hallock didn’t make any of the stats lists I’ve included, I did mention him frequently. While his one game suspension is partly to blame for his lack of inclusion, it can not be overlooked that everything the US does is designed around Hallock and his talent. It is not out of line to call him the best and most talented player on the squad, and the team is ostensibly built around his skill set: The team wants to play tough defense, use the attention Hallock generates to open up outside shooting, and use the exclusions and penalties Hallock draws to gain a competitive advantage. So let’s look at what that means in this tournament.

In the 5 games he played this tournament, Hallock accounted for 8 goals—5/11 from center and 3/3 in extra player situations. Notable about the center goals for Hallock, no other player on the US team even attempted more than 3 shots from the center position. Even with the re-inclusion of Alex Obert, the US is basically only really running a one center rotation. However, a center’s value isn't just in scoring and Hallock reflects that. According to Total Water Polo stats, Hallock drew 26 personal fouls in 5 games or about 5 extra scoring opportunities per game for the USA. Since the US is scoring those at about 50%, it can be argued that Hallock is contributing about 2.5 goals per game from these situations. So combining his .6 goals/gm average and that 2.5 goals from penalties or exclusions per game, a (very, very) rough estimation of Hallock’s offensive value is about 3 goals per game. I question whether this is enough impact for the best player on a team to have.

Looking specifically at center play, it is difficult to find a player who primarily plays that position playing more than 20 minutes per game (15-17 is more average), and Ben Hallock reflects this. However, no other player is taking as many shots from the center position as Hallock; he led all shooters with 11 shots from center while playing one fewer game (the next closest player had 7). However, his efficiency in those center shots was not quite on the same level as the other top scoring centers (45% compared to an average of 66%). He also was among the top volume exclusion drawers in the tournament even with the one game suspension. Certainly, Hallock is impacting the game in the time he’s in the water and being used heavily, but perhaps his limited time in the water is also impacting his ability to influence games for the US.

The fact of the matter is, no other team is relying on one center nearly as much as the United States is relying on Hallock. But is this reliance on an all-world center effective for winning at the international level? Taking it a step further, is the one-dimensional reliance on that individual player in that position perhaps the cause of some of the US woes? It is hard not to see the French result and wonder if, by keeping Hallock at center and thereby limiting his effective minutes and ability to impact the game with scoring, the US is not getting as much from their generational talent as is possible. It is hard to say for certain if a similar shift would help the United States (Can Hallock even be the scoring threat Vernoux is?), but it does not seem that the team will ever be much better than the same 5-9 place finishes doing what is currently being done. 

Currently, it does not seem like the US has sufficient outside vertical shooting to fully capitalize on the advantages Hallock is creating. The two highest volume shooters on the team (Bowen and Daube) need to increase their efficiency closer to 50% and the United States needs to find at least one other consistent outside scoring option (Dodd?, Cupido?). However, the glaring weakness is, has been, and continues to be a lack of left handed presence in the pool for the US. It is notable in offensive extra player situations how much the lack of a left handed shooter impacts the defensive schemes the United States sees; moreover, the US extra player defense is routinely picked apart by the best left handed players in the world. I believe this comes from a lack of training situations with an international-caliber left handed player. Unfortunately, it does not seem possible or likely that this issue can be addressed prior to the Olympics, so it is imperative that the staff and players game plan and prepare for how they will open up 6 on 5 situations offensively without a scoring lefty as well as how they will game plan for the great goal-getting left handed players they will see if they hope to make the medal rounds at the Olympics.

The positive spin from World Championships would say that the United States was in close games against good teams, that the US was right there and if maybe a couple things had gone differently they would have played for a medal. Unfortunately, that is not what I saw. What I saw was a team that lost its composure, couldn’t find offense when it needed it and couldn’t hold onto a lead. A team that struggled against the best teams in the world when it mattered. A team that doesn’t seem to know what to do when their first option is taken away. As it stands, the USA men’s team appears to lack the vertical shooting ability, team identity and professional discipline to be included in the conversation of medal contenders in Paris.

I hope you enjoyed my reflections on the United States men’s team. Let me know below if you agree or disagree. What would you do if you were the men’s national team coach? Also, let me know if you’d like to see similar breakdowns for other teams. Until next time, keep thinking water polo!