PHOTO: Lyndsay Radnedge/LRadiCal Photography
With the recent signing of center back Guram Kashia, captain of the Georgian national team and from Vitesse of the Dutch Eredivisie, and with the ongoing back line carousel of the San Jose Earthquakes this not-so-great season, fans can be forgiven for yearning for the yesteryear stability of the back four – particularly the middle two. Back in 2014 and 2015, the Quakes had a difficult time scoring goals but at least had a dependable defense. And when Earthquakes fans think of center back pairings, Victor Bernardez and Clarence Goodson immediately come to mind. But why Bernardez and Goodson? Why not Bernardez and Jason Hernandez from the 2012 Supporters Shield year, or center back pairings from the MLS Cup years? Certainly Bernardez and Goodson are more recent in our memories, but the most likely reason we think of them first is because their individual playing styles were compelling but distinct. Yet both fit the mold of how San Jose fans view the historical ethos of the club and its top players.
Victor Bernardez was a Honduran national team player who created moments. Physically imposing, he played with obvious passion, shielding goalkeepers and taking on attackers in a highly dynamic way. He blasted balls out of stadiums, bicycle-kicked clearances, ran over opposing players and wagged his finger at referees who would dare show him a card.
Appearing tall and lanky despite his strength, Clarence Goodson was the ying to the Bernardez yang. He come across to fans as Mr. Cool-Calm-and-Collected, at least until opposing players would raise his ire. Having played previously in MLS for FC Dallas and then in Denmark, along with US national team stints for the 2010 World Cup and 2013 Gold Cup teams, Goodson was an attractive get for a Quakes team struggling in the shadow of 2012. Compared to Bernardez, Goodson seemed more like the silent assassin – a cerebral player who outsmarted attackers on the crosses, moved the ball with confidence and gave the Quakes a much-needed threat in the penalty box on set pieces.
As Jesse Fioranelli signed his current crop of Quakes center backs, comparisons were immediately made to Bernardez and Goodson. After all, both physically imposing Harold Cummings and Yefferson Quintana, from Panama and Uruguay respectively, seemed cut out of the Bernardez mold. Whether due to his thinner frame or European skills expectations, when Francois Affolter was brought in from Switzerland last year, it seemed everyone was hoping he would be “another Goodson”.
But do our memories of the distinct playing styles of Bernardez and Goodson hold up under the microscope of the data from their years together?
Rewind to 2013
The San Jose Earthquakes signed Clarence Goodson on June 28, 2013 ahead of the California Clasico after starting the season with a very disappointing 4 wins, 6 draws and 7 losses following their 2012 Supporters Shield campaign. That Clasico would go on to become famous in Earthquakes lore for its incredible comeback, however Goodson did not feature in the game. Although he would only play in 9 games in 2013 due to injuries and fitness, his arrival made an immediate impact, teaming with Victor Bernardez, and the Earthquakes would just miss the playoffs finishing with 10 wins, 3 draws and 4 losses the rest of the way. 2014 seemed it would be bright with the Goodson and Bernardez center back pairing, with fans expecting a return to glory.
However, 2014 would not go as planned as Goodson was only able to make 10 appearances for the Quakes due to injuries which lasted from June 7 through the rest of the season. Goodson’s absence was strongly felt as the team would finish last in the Western Conference table – conceding 50 goals while only scoring 35 – their worst record in club history with only 6 wins.
The opening of Avaya Stadium and 2015 would become the best opportunity to experience the duo of Bernardez and Goodson as they played 29 and 28 games respectively. With both mostly healthy for the season, the Quakes significantly improved to 39 goals conceded, helping them improve to 7th in the Western Conference and 13th overall. Not an offensive juggernaut, and still having fullback concerns, the 2015 Quakes were able to end the season with a positive goal differential, scoring 41.
In 2016, chronic back issues would get the better of Goodson. He was only able to play in 2 games before finally officially retiring.
Bernardez and Goodson: a retrospective in data
It does not feel all that long ago Clarence Goodson and Victor Bernardez together were anchoring the back line of the San Jose Earthquakes. Our earliest memories of Avaya Stadium are firmly implanted with them playing together. But do those memories accurately reflect their play on the field? Using 2014 and 2015 season data, we will examine three primary areas of data analysis to draw some conclusions: passing, ball handling and defensive actions.
Let’s cover one statistic right now – goals. Bernardez scored 2 goals in 2014, and Goodson scored 2 goals in 2015. Here’s an early surprise: Bernardez had a run-of-play goal along with a set piece goal, while both of Goodson’s goals came off of set pieces.
Passing Comparison
If one thing is for certain, Goodson was the better passer, right?
The WhoScored.com passing data for 2014 and 2015 shows a potentially different story.
LB = Long Ball; SP = Short Pass
These numbers are a bit shocking – Bernardez is the clear winner here when you combine the two years, although Goodson had a stronger, but short, 2014 season. In total Bernardez was 3.5% better at long balls and a full percentage point better at short passes in 2014 and 2015. In fact, in Goodson’s full “healthy” year of 2015, his long ball percentage was approximately 28% lower than in 2014 prior to his injury. However, this does show that our initial 2014 impression of Goodson’s ability to hit an accurate long ball 68% of the time stuck with us and has continued to form many fans’ recollection of his passing accuracy for the Quakes even to this day.
Given the games played, there is about 50% more data for Bernardez than Goodson for these two years, but the data is substantial enough to be conclusive. Perhaps if we look at this data by the area of the pitch, we will see something different. Is there an area of the field where Goodson’s passing shines?
To answer this, we analyzed AmericanSoccerAnalysis.com (ASA) public data on passing and expected passing (xPass) by thirds of the pitch. This type of data only became available for MLS in 2015.
https://www.americansocceranalysis.com/player-passing-2015/
Note: The total pass numbers between WhoScored and ASA are slightly different, but this does not materially affect the data
First, 73-75% passing is not considered that good for any center back, particularly when a material portion of their passes are not made under much pressure. In fact, 24 MLS central defenders who played over 1000 minutes passed between 80-85% in 2015, and Goodson was near the bottom overall of center backs that season. In full transparency, according to WhoScored, Goodson passed at an excellent 84.7% over his 10 games of 2014 but was at 73.5% in his 9 games of 2013.
As you can see by the Pass % column, while Bernardez passed at higher percentile in the middle and defensive thirds – where the bulk of the passes are – Goodson was clearly better in the attacking (final) third by a 20% margin. These attacking third passes were not attempted often (Bernardez was at about 1 per game and Goodson at about 1.3 per game), however Goodson executed them extremely well as evidenced by his Pass % being 10% higher than his Expected %. In ASA’s xPass methodology, Goodson completed 10% more passes than he should have for the position, angle and distance of his passes in the attacking third. Interestingly, both players are very forward in their passing – looking at the Vertical columns, both are around 9 yards forward on average with their middle third and 8 yards forward on their defensive third passes, where backpassing is commonplace, particularly longer passes to the keeper.
In a last look at the attacking third data, we see that Goodson passed almost 5 yards forward on average, while Bernardez passed 8 yards backward. That is a 13 yard average difference, which is quite distinct for the same position. This Vertical value in the attacking third is one indicator Goodson generally had an attacking mentality, while Bernardez had a possession mentality. The key pass numbers for 2014 and 2015 agree with this indicator:
Note: A key pass is any successful pass which is followed by a shot, shot on target or a goal.
Goodson has an almost 3-to-1 advantage in key passes overall, and 8-to-1 in 2015, so this helps confirm our earlier analysis that Goodson was more attacking-minded in the final third, given 10 of his 14 key passes come from short passes. Short key passes almost exclusively are made in the final third since they end in a shot.
In case you are wondering, Goodson had 3 assists to 1 for Bernardez in 2014 and 2015. Many analysts would say assists in aggregate are considered to be an indicator of luck since any key pass could become an assist depending on the quality of the shot taken, deflections, keeper error and other random factors not in the control of the player making the key pass.
Here is a game from 2014 with a Goodson key pass in the box, presumably resulting from a corner. Note the yellow box and arrow:
And here is the Bernardez passing chart for the same game:
Buoyed by some decent passing from the center back duo, the Quakes won this particular game 1-2 away vs. FC Dallas.
Ball Handling Comparison
Working with a limited data set available from WhoScored, we can compare how Goodson and Bernardez handled the ball other than passing. There are three categories available to us: dribbles, aerials and reasons for possession loss.
It’s fair to say neither defender tried to dribble with the ball very much. Bernardez trying to sprint through the defense with the ball was interesting, mostly because it was rare. From this small bit of data, Bernardez gets a slight edge for more successful dribbles with lower combined turnovers and dispossessions. If you would like a statistical explanation of these terms, Quakes Epicenter has a glossary.
Aerial balls is a key category for a central defender. Quakes Twitter was quite alive over the past couple seasons where several free kick goals were conceded which had fans lamenting over not having someone like Goodson to win these types of balls. Some pointed out we also had no imposing presence for our own free kick aerials.
The outcome of examining the aerial data is another split decision. In terms of goals, we already know Goodson had 2 and Bernardez had 1 off of free kicks in these two years. Bernardez won a higher percentage of aerial duels, but Goodson won about one more aerial per game. Unfortunately, this data set doesn’t distinguish between offensive and defensive aerials won.
Defensive Comparison
Passing is important and winning aerials is also important, but if a center back cannot play solid defense, he probably needs a different position. Probably most Earthquakes fans would remember both Victor Bernardez and Clarence Goodson as very capable defenders. Neither was considered pacey, but it was rare to see someone leave them in the dust completely. There are several defensive statistics available to us. First, let’s take a look at fouls and cards.
The most interesting stat here is Goodson did not have a red card. Impressively, Bernardez only had one red card. In this type of analysis, it is best to look at metrics per game, per 90 official minutes or the MLS game-length average of 96 minutes including stoppage time, because aggregate data can be misleading. Here we see Goodson had fewer total cards than Bernardez, but on a per game basis he received yellow cards on a slightly higher frequency, which is interesting because Bernardez is generally considered the more physical player. However, Bernardez did foul at a higher rate. So the best guess here is either the Bernardez finger wag worked to get him out of cards, or Goodson having the better – and potentially more colorful – English skills hurt him with some referees.
It is worth pointing out that Goodson attracted almost twice as many fouls as Bernardez, perhaps using his mind games on opposing strikers.
Bernardez is clearly the better tackler at an almost 2.5-to-1 rate, however he was also more susceptible to being dribbled past. Goodson favored better positioning between ball and goal, and attempted fewer tackles. This could be a reason his interceptions were slightly higher – sometimes absorbing pressure and sitting a little deeper, waiting for the right moment, can provide an opportunity to step-and-steal a pass.
Goodson gets the slight edge in clearances, but it’s pretty even. Goodson also has the statistical lead on blocked shots, but Bernardez gets the nod for blocked crosses and, especially, blocked passes.
Final Thoughts
Much of what we know and love about Goodson and Bernardez can be seen within their historical data. Goodson had the better final ball, but Bernardez holds his own in the passing area, perhaps moreso than he ever received credit for. Bernardez was the better tackler and shot blocker, while Goodson played a mental defensive game. Both men cleared well, didn’t commit many cheap fouls and kept cards to a minimum. Goodson had a slight edge in total aerials balls won, but Bernardez won them more often.
In watching videos of Guram Kashia, you see a player who is beloved by Vitesse fans for his passion and pride, and – win, lose or draw – leaves everything on the pitch. Such a player has the opportunity to also be beloved in San Jose where a high work rate on the pitch endears players to the fanbase. When remembering back on Victor Bernardez and Clarence Goodson, despite their style differences, Earthquakes fans will fondly recall two men who brought passion and pride to Avaya Stadium and to the San Jose Earthquakes.
