Using data to identify playing styles across the USL Championship 2024

In today’s football landscape, data has become a crucial tool for identifying playing styles and team dynamics, particularly in rapidly evolving leagues. The USL Championship is one such league.

Home to various teams with varying tactical approaches, often seen as a pathway to the MLS, the USL Championship offers us the opportunity to conduct a case study on how data can be harnessed to break down and understand playing styles.

Data analytics allows us to move beyond surface-level observations and truly dissect the game from high-pressing teams that dominate possession to sides that rely on quick counterattacks.

The USL Championship itself is a league which has more eyes on it, partly due to the influx of high-profile players into the MLS, people are often curious and take a look at the wider footballing landscape in North America.

Additionally, some European clubs are considering the USL as part of their recruitment strategies. For example, CD Castellón of La Liga 2 recently agreed a reported six-figure deal with Charleston Battery for USL top scorer Nick Markanich to join them after the end of the 2024 season.

In this piece, we’ll dive into how key metrics — such as ball progression, possession statistics, and pressing intensity — can be used to uncover the tactical DNA of USL Championship teams, providing valuable insights for scouts, analysts, and fans alike.

Data analysis

Let’s begin by looking at the average possession stats for the USL teams this season. This data shows us that Las Vegas Lights are the team that enjoys the highest possession per 90, averaging 57.92%. Charleston Battery and Phoenix Rising are not far behind, averaging 57.59% and 56.63% respectively.

Interestingly, Charleston find themselves in second place in the Eastern Conference whilst Phoenix and Las Vegas occupy fifth and seventh positions in the Western Conference. Whilst the three teams who enjoy the highest amount of possession per 90 are in the playoff spots, the current leaders of each conference have much lower average possession stats.

Western Conference leaders, New Mexico United average 51.95% possession whilst their Eastern Conference counterparts, Louisville City, average 47%. This suggests, especially with Louisville, that they have a specific way of playing, not centred around possession, and are executing it very well in their output.

Meanwhile, Miami who are languishing bottom of the Eastern Conference with just 11 points to their name, average the least possession with 44.66% per 90. It is also worth pointing out that Indy Eleven who are down there with Miami in terms of possession are in the playoff places in terms of their league position.

In this data viz, we can compare the average number of passes per open play possession with the average number of team passes per minute of pure ball possession (Match tempo). This allows us to ascertain how quickly our teams are moving the ball along with how many passes they execute within a possession that does not occur from a set piece (open play possession).

Loudoun United are the team which catches the eye at first glance as they average 4.63 passes per possession and a match tempo of 17.19. We can see that Charleston Battery and New Mexico United are both in the top right quadrant with a higher match tempo and more passes per possession.

Indy Eleven is an interesting one as we established in the previous data viz that they do not average a high amount of possession per 90. They average a tempo of 16.27 and 3.27 passes per possession. This suggests that when they get the ball, they look to move it quickly but are less focused on ball retention with their style of play.

Las Vegas Lights and Phoenix Rising appear to prioritise retaining possession and play at a lower tempo whilst Louisville City play at a lower tempo with fewer passes per possession, suggesting a counterattacking style of play.

Here, we can see how well our USL teams perform regarding their progressive passing. Loudoun United top the progressive passes, averaging 77.41 per 90 whilst Miami execute the least amount with 59.74 per 90.

Monterey Bay FC and Pittsburgh Riverhounds are two teams we have yet to mention in this analysis, they average 77.04 and 76.31 progressive passes per 90. Monterey are about average in terms of possession in the very first data viz (49.03%) whilst Pittsburgh averages 46.46% possession per 90. This suggests that both teams seek to play progressive passes when possible and optimise the possession they do have.

Looking at how our teams get the ball into the penalty area, Tampa Bay Rowdies catch the eye. The Florida-based team execute more penalty box entries than anyone else and are equally adept at doing this via crosses (12.96 per 90) or through runs (5.89 per 90).

Moreover, Las Vegas Lights opt to utilise runs rather than crosses, averaging 5.57 penalty box entries from runs per 90. Additionally, Indy Eleven look to utilise crosses as they average 11.48 per 90 compared to 2.41 runs per 90.

It’s no real surprise to see Miami in the bottom left quadrant given what we have already established regarding their possession and creativity this season. Louisville City look to utilise both crosses and runs to get into the opposition box, suggesting that when they are in possession, they aim to progress quickly into the final third.

In this data visual we will analyse the number of shots per 90 taken by our teams compared to their shots on target percentage. From this, we can further understand how effective Louisville City are in their attacks as they average 15.04 shots per 90, with 38.92% hitting the target.

New Mexico United have the best shots on target percentage with 43.45% of their 11.55 shots per 90 finding the target. Meanwhile, the three prominent teams in this analysis; Tampa Bay, Charleston and the previously mentioned Louisville, all perform above average regarding the number of shots per 90 and the number which are on target.

Furthermore, Las Vegas Lights execute an above-average number of shots per 90, 12.07 but have the worst shots on target percentage with 32.25%. This could be a key factor as to why they are not higher up in the Western Conference and a big reason why they currently only have a goal difference of +1.

Now, let’s take a closer look at how our USL teams perform in their expected goals compared to their actual goal outputs per 90. Louisville City are the most clinical team in the league, averaging 2.56 goals per 90 from an xG of 2.02 per 90.

Then we have Charleston Battery who average 2.03 goals per 90 from 1.85 expected goals per 90. Tampa Bay Rowdies attacking intent is also on show as they average 1.68 goals per 90 from an xG of 1.95 per 90.

Pittsburgh Riverhounds are an interesting one as they average 1.47 expected goals per 90 but only score 1.03 goals per 90 suggesting they are creating goal-scoring opportunities but are not clinical enough with their finishing.

Additionally, Miami FC average 0.93 goals per 90 from an xG of 0.98 per 90. Despite being bottom of the league, this is not a huge underperformance. Based on this, we can infer that their woes in front of goal are more to do with a lack of creativity rather than squandering goalscoring opportunities.

Looking at which ‘type’ of attacks our teams prefer according to the Wyscout data, Indy Eleven are worth talking about as they average 1.44 counterattacks per 90 and 29.96 positional attacks. We saw earlier in this analysis that they average about 45% possession per 90 which, when paired with these metrics suggests they are very productive when they get the ball.

Tampa Bay Rowdies average 1.21 counterattacks and 32.93 positional attacks per 90 which allows us to infer that they are one of the most attacking teams in the league. Moreover, Louisville City are not far behind with 1.19 and 31.37 per 90, plus, with 47% possession, this suggests that they adopt a similar philosophy to Indy Eleven when in possession.

Charleston Battery averages 0.76 counterattacks and 31.34 positional attacks indicating that they prefer to build attacks through the thirds rather than rapidly transitioning from defence to attack.

In this data viz, we can see the number of passes per defensive action allowed by our USL teams. In short, we can identify which teams look to press the most. Interestingly, the top two are teams we haven’t really mentioned in this piece yet.

San Antonio have a PPDA of 9.17 whilst Rhode Island are not far behind with 9.33. Conversely, Orange County SC have a PPDA of 14.63 indicating they do not look to press their opponents, preferring to sit back and allow them to have possession.

Next up, we shall take a closer look at our team’s ball recoveries by identifying which team executes the most ‘high recoveries’ per 90. Of course, we have to acknowledge Pittsburgh who average the most recoveries and high recoveries per 90 with 91.24 and 1.14.

Moreover, we find ourselves mentioning Tampa Bay once again, as they average 79.04 recoveries with 13.96 per 90 being classed as high recoveries. Indy Eleven are also in the top right quadrant, indicating an above-average performance in these metrics (averaging 82.56 overall recoveries and 14.11 high recoveries per 90).

Rhode Island and San Antonio are also up there which is not entirely surprising given their PPDA statistics. Louisville City average the second-highest number of overall ball recoveries with 84.33, they also average 13.67 high recoveries per 90.

Turning our attention to the lower left quadrant, we can see that Miami FC are by far the worst performers in these metrics. Averaging 68.19 recoveries per 90 and 6.96 high recoveries per 90, we can understand that they are not a team that regains possession high up the pitch, whether that is down to a tactical instruction or poor pressing is something we cannot tell from this visual.

In this visual, we can compare the number of shots our USL teams face per 90 with the percentage of these shots which find the target.

Based on what we’ve already found in this analysis, it’s no real surprise to see Miami concede the highest number of shots against per 90 (16.15 with 41% finding the target). This suggests a real problem defensively in terms of the opponent being able to create a huge number of shooting opportunities per game.

Monterey Bay face 13.54 shots per 90 with 43% being on target (the highest SAoT percentage), whilst FC Tulsa face 13.96 shots per 90 with 34.48% hitting the target.

Pittsburgh and North Carolina statistically face the fewest shots per 90 with 8.17 and 8.56 per 90 respectively. However, both concede an above-average number of shots on target with Pittsburgh averaging 39.66% and North Carolina, 40.69%.

Finally, looking at the number of goals our teams concede, we can clearly see that Miami certainly find themselves picking the ball out of their net frequently.

From the 16.15 shots they concede per 90, 2.41 end up being goals. With a -42 goal difference at the time of writing, Miami have the worst defensive record in the USL by a mile.

Sacramento Republic actually concede the fewest goals per 90 with 0.8 and Charleston Battery are not far behind with 0.97.

It is also worth noting that 14 of our 24 team data sample are in the lower left quadrant, indicating a defensively solid below-average performance in terms of both shots and goals conceded per 90 (although Miami are a significant outlier which will skew the data slightly).

Percentile Rankings

In this section, we will look further into the percentile rankings of a few of the teams we mentioned on more than one occasion in the above data analysis.

Tampa Bay Rowdies

So, looking at the pizza charts, we can understand how well Tampa perform in and out of possession as well as gain an overall view of set pieces (as much as Wyscout data allows).

Mostly playing a 3–4–3 system, we can see that crosses into the box are a big part of their game plan as they are in the 99th percentiles for both crosses and accurate crosses. Additionally, Tampa are in the 99th percentile for runs into the box suggesting the wing backs and wide forwards have the licence to run down the flanks and carry the ball into the box.

We can also see that they enjoy a significant amount of possession (supported by our data analysis) which leads to a high volume of shots per 90. Interestingly, they are in the 75th percentile for long shots, something which may play a part in the lower shots on target percentage.

Out of possession, Tampa Bay look to use a high press, as per the PPDA ranking (the lower the PPDA, the more intense the press). We can see that this leads to a significant number of high recoveries.

Moreover, Tampa execute an above-average number of sliding tackles suggesting they are more reactive than proactive in their defending. If they push forward and attack in numbers, it may leave them short in transition and force them into reactive measures. Further to this, they also commit a high number of fouls per 90, possibly to halt opposition counterattacks.

Additionally, we can see that Tampa utilise corners well as they are in the 95th percentile for corners leading to shots. They are pretty solid all-round in terms of how they use set pieces to create shooting opportunities.

Charleston Battery

Charleston are a team who love to shoot! Based on the pizza charts we can see they rank in the 91st percentile for shots, the 95th for long shots and the 87th for shots on target percentage.

Averaging over 2 goals per 90, their 4–2–3–1 system is proving to be incredibly effective in both attack and defence. The chart tells us that Charleston look to retain possession using short passes and rapid ball rotations.

Based on the high percentile for progressive passes and passes into the final third, it's possible that they seek to play through the thirds and work the ball into the box. Additionally, the 70th percentile ranking for crosses suggests that they will get the ball out wide quite frequently although they struggle with the accuracy of the crosses played into the box.

Defensively, they look to press high and recover possession high up the pitch. Charleston seemingly perform very few defensive actions per 90 and excel in the duels both on the ground and aerially that they do enter into.

Louisville City

Eastern Conference leaders, Louisville are similar to Charleston in their willingness to take shots on, especially from range although a significantly less number of Louisville long-range efforts hit the target.

Whilst Charleston appear to be possession-based and building up through the thirds, Louisville are the opposite of that. The pizza chart shows us that they very much aim to hit long passes into the final third, most likely to the wing backs or wide forwards in their 3–4–3 system. We can see they execute a high number of crosses into the box per 90 so it’s fair to say the idea is probably to get the ball out wide as quickly as possible.

Louisville have a lower PPDA than the two teams previously mentioned, however, they do execute a higher amount of ball recoveries per 90 as they are in the 95th percentile for overall recoveries.

They face fewer shots against although a significant percentage are on target which suggests they may allow the opponents to shoot from positions which are more optimal for them to hit the target.

Furthermore, Louisville appear to be dominant in the aerial battles in addition to winning a high number of their sliding tackles.

We can also see that they are in the 99th percentile for set pieces leading to shots demonstrating that the Kentucky-based team utilise this as a key element of their game plan.

Miami FC

We’ve talked about Miami quite a lot in this analysis so let’s look at the pizza charts and see if we can find some context for their woeful season so far.

Having played a number of different systems, 3–5–2, 4–4–2, 3–4–3, it appears that Miami have been to stem the flow of goals flooding into their net. Largely, to no avail. We can see in the out-of-possession percentiles that they are the least pressing team in the league and therefore struggle to recover possession which of course, leads to more shots against them.

Furthermore, although they compete in a significant number of defensive duels, there is a rather concerning 4th percentile win ranking and they appear not to challenge for the aerial battles very much at all.

Returning to look at their attacking outputs, we can see that the majority of their shots appear to be long shots, from which, there is a lower probability of finding the back of the net.

They struggle to retain possession so when they do regain the ball, look to use long passes and counterattacks but this does not translate to a high volume of shots being taken suggesting that shooting opportunities are not being created.

New Mexico United

Finally, looking at New Mexico United, we can see that they are in the 99th percentile for shots on target percentage and for long shots on target suggesting their shooting is very accurate and not wasteful.

New Mexico use a 4–2–3–1 system, looking to retain possession and primarily play short passes as per their low ranking for long pass percentage. They do play progressive passes, suggesting a build-up via line-breaking passes.

Additionally, given their 8th percentile ranking for crosses into the box, it is fairly evident that passes from central areas and runs into the box are the preferred method of getting into the opposition penalty area for the Albuquerque-based side.

Defensively, we can see they press intensely but this doesn’t lead to an above-average number of recoveries per 90. However, the 54th percentile ranking for high recoveries tells us that from the ball recoveries they do make, an above-average number are in the opposition’s defensive third.

Interestingly, New Mexico United do not appear to make the most of their set pieces. We can see that they execute few corners and very few of these lead to shots. Additionally, their throw-ins appear to lack accuracy. Perhaps set pieces are an area where they could look to make some marginal gains over the next few seasons.

Conclusion

In this analysis, we have used data to examine the performances of USL Championship teams this season.

We have been able to compare and contrast the teams using a variety of metrics, allowing us to gain an understanding of each team’s strengths and weaknesses in addition to the tactical styles they utilise on the pitch.

Most noteworthy are Miami’s struggles across the board, Louisville’s clinical attack, using long passing to their advantage and Charleston and Tampa’s more possession-based tactics.

Overall, there appears to be a wide variety of playing styles in the league, Louisville are top of the Eastern Conference with their way of playing whilst New Mexico are top of the Western Conference with a very different style of play. There is perhaps an argument to say that the teams with the most settled style of play appear to be performing best.

This has been a wonderful exploration of a growing league and it will be interesting to see how the team’s tactical styles develop over time.

I hope you have enjoyed this deep dive into the USL, many thanks for reading!