TABLE 2.3. ODD MAN RUSH DATA RESULTS IN EVEN STRENGTH SITUATIONS Odd man rush type
Occurrence
Share
Goals
Goal percentage
1 on 0
36
15.6%
6
16.7%
2 on 1
66
28.6%
7
10.6%
3 on 2
93
40.3%
11
11.8%
other
36
15.6%
4
11.1%
Logically 1 on 0 situation was the most dangerous one with around 17% of a goal percentage. Bigger data sample is much needed to refine presented values.
Next part is dedicated to study the effect of forechecking. Forechecking type influenced opponent´s possession type. When forechecking was high or medium (for definitions see chapter 2.2.3.) opponent possessing the ball generated more quick attacks. With described forechecking 86% of quick attacks were generated (and only 14% with low forechecking). Low forechecking pushes possessing team to go for slow attack more often. 33% of all slow attacks were executed against low forechecking (67% with high or medium forechecking).
Interesting question could be: How efficient are teams possessing against high forechecking and how efficient is high forechecking team to force turnover possessions? There were 980 possessions (no attack, slow attack, quick attack or odd man rush) registered against high forechecking and a total of 13 goals were scored from them. This creates only 1.3% of a goal percentage! On the other hand only 66 turnover possessions were created from opponents and only 3 goals scored from them (goal percentage of only 4.5%). High forechecking generated around 7% of turnover possessions but these were not very effective at the end.
It might appear as a paradox but high forechecking worked as preventing a goal scoring at the 2018 WFC in all possession types (by 65% in slow attacks, by 59% in quick attacks and by 100% in odd man rushes, 0 goals scored from 33 odd man rushes with high forechecking by opponent). Critical contextual aspect could very well played its role here though. It were usually stronger teams forechecking higher and their level of defending could have worked as a preventing danger possession against (see chapter 2.3.1.). There might be no logical argument for low efficient turnover possessions from high forechecking as a counter argument though.
46