Argentina won the Women's World Cup and scored two field goals in the entire tournament. Two. Across seven matches, against the best teams on the planet, almost everything they put on the scoreboard came from penalty corners and penalty strokes. And they still went home with the trophy.
That single number should make every one of us pause, because it quietly demolishes a lot of what commentators, and quite a few coaches, treat as settled truth. More possession wins games. More circle entries wins games. Win the corner count and you win the match. Pull the keeper and you buy yourself a chance.
Simon Blanford spent the weeks after the World Cup collecting his own data from video, match by match, and then went looking for whether any of that actually holds up. Most of it does not. Here is what he found, and why it matters for the way you plan your next session.
TLDR
Of the four numbers we see at half time, only shots predicted winning. Possession and circle entries did not. Penalty corners were a weak signal at best.
Penalty corner conversion across these teams sat at 17% before the World Cup and 17% during it. Beating 20% consistently is rare, and single-tournament numbers are wildly streaky.
The difference between a good corner team and an average one often sits with the second and third takers, not the star.
Straight shots at goal converted at roughly 11% for drag flicks, 10% for hits and 12% for slaps. Drag flicks produced far fewer scoring rebounds than hits.
A circle entry in this tournament was worth about an 11% chance of scoring. The Netherlands were bang on average for chance quality and won on volume. Argentina and Chile went the other way, fewer visits, bigger chances.
Teams pulled the keeper in 29 of 50 matches, and it changed the outcome in about 3.5% of those cases. None of the attacking metrics improved.
Enjoy these 30 minutes ↑ of the +90 minute full video. Upgrade ↓ to see more.
Table of Contents
Most of the numbers on the screen are window dressing
Blanford threw possession, circle entries, shots and penalty corners into a model and asked a blunt question: which of these actually predicts who wins?
Possession, no. Circle entries, no, which is the genuinely surprising one. Penalty corners, only weakly. Shots, yes, clearly. The more shots a team took, the more likely they were to win.
That does not mean possession and circle entries are meaningless. It means they are inputs, not outcomes. As Blanford put it, these counts are "a little bit of window dressing" until you connect them to something else or start asking questions of them. Possession did translate into circle entries, and circle entries translated into chances with a very strong relationship, 0.91. You cannot create a chance in hockey without getting into a scoring area. But the chain only pays off if the end of it is a shot worth taking.
The more useful version of the question is not "did we have more circle entries" but "what did we do with them, and what did we let our opponent do with theirs".
The Dutch story is a defending story
Every analysis of women's hockey ends up using the Netherlands as a reference point, and this one is revealing in an unexpected way.
Subscribe to continue reading
Become a paying subscriber of The Hockey Site to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
UpgradeA subscription gets you:
- Unlimited access to our on demand archive of videos and articles
- Subscription to our newsletter
- Full access to content that can earn you CPD credits with FIH
- Access to Assistant.Hockey - your AI coach assistant
