The contrasting left side of Växjö | Measuring player performance [2:2]

Written by Mattias Hall.

In part one of this series (now unlocked and free for everyone), we looked at how Växjö's left defense pairing — André Andersson and Eemeli Akola — influenced the offensive side of the game. We saw two players with wildly different profiles contribute in their own ways, and how their presence affected both shot share and scoring chances. But as every coach will tell you — games aren’t won by offense alone.

This time, we're turning our eyes to the other side of the ball.

・How do Andersson and Akola handle their defensive responsibilities?
・Can we find the same contrasts in the way they defend as we did in the way they attack?
・And what does the video say about their decision-making without the ball?

As a former Swedish national team defender, I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the demands of playing left D at the highest level. I’m going to try to analyze defensive participation, zone coverage, and how each player impacts the opponent's ability to generate dangerous looks, based on my experiences.

Let’s get into it.

In my view, there’s no single defensive system that clearly outperforms the rest. Most of the time, it’s a question of trends — how the best teams at the moment choose to defend. The real key to effective team defense, in my opinion, lies in two things: how well the unit as a whole executes the system they’ve chosen to play, and how detail-oriented they are when it comes to the small things — the ones that don’t always show up on the stat sheet, but make a massive difference over time.

And that’s exactly why evaluating defensive play can be so tricky. Players have different roles. Teams play in different systems. Matchups vary, and so does the quality of the opposition.

But with that said, if I had to break down individual defensive performance — especially for defensemen — I’d argue there are three core aspects that can be measured in a somewhat consistent and transferable way, regardless of system or role.

For this article, I’ve chosen to limit the scope to defensemen only, and I’m also narrowing the zone of analysis to the defensive third of the court — from the centerline and out toward the boards, on each player's natural side.

Every player finds themselves in one-on-one situations multiple times in a game. But simply tracking “ball-wins” would be misleading. In many cases, a good defender shouldn’t try to win the ball outright. Sometimes the smarter play is to steer, delay, or contain the opponent — depending on where you are on the court and what kind of support you have behind you. It should also differ depending on the defender’s strengths.

That’s why, to evaluate a one-on-one defensively in a fair way, I believe you need to weigh three elements together:

・Decision-making
— Did the defender choose the right tactic and positioning before engaging?
・Execution
— How well did they carry out what they aimed to do?
・Outcome
— What was the result of the duel?

In short: it’s not just about whether they stopped the player, but how they did it and why they chose that approach. When you add context to the outcome, one-on-one:s become one of the most telling parts of a defender’s game.

I’ve chosen to grade each one-on-one battle on a scale from 0 to 5 — where 0 represents a critical mistake that directly leads to a dangerous scoring chance, and 5 means the defender made a perfect decision and executed it flawlessly.

Grading Scale:

5 — Perfect decision + execution
Fully adapted to the situation, great timing

4 — Good decision, well executed
Nothing dangerous happened, but it could have been optimized

3 — Right idea, mediocre execution or bad decision but good recovery
Mixed result, partially effective

2 — Poor decision and/or poor technique
Opponent gains momentum or advantage

1 — Major mistake
Player mistimed or beaten clean

0 — Critical error
Directly leads to a scoring chance or goal

Here you will see Emeli Akola with one-on-one battle I graded with a 4.

I sat down and graded every single defensive action — within the limitations mentioned above — made by Andersson and Akola in game three against Falun. And honestly, the numbers line up pretty well with both the eye test and the preconceived notions I’ve had from watching them play earlier this season. David also touched on this in part one of the series.

André Andersson: 3.44 / 5

Eemeli Akola: 4.11 / 5

Looking strictly at the one-on-one grades, Akola came out ahead with a strong 4.11 average, compared to Andersson’s 3.44. Akola is more consistent and composed defensively when isolated, while Andersson shows a bit more variation in his defensive decision-making but is still solid and relies more on his game intelligence than physicality.

But one-on-one:s only tell part of the story. A defender doesn’t get rewarded here for reading the play well, breaking up passes, or positioning themselves in a way that prevents the opponent from even attacking their side of the court.

“If I have to make a tackle, then I’ve already made a mistake.” — Paolo Maldini, AC Milan

In hockey, there’s a stat called Denied Entries — tracking how often a defenseman prevents the opponent from carrying the puck into the zone. That includes breaking up the play, separating the opponent from the puck, forcing a reset, or making them dump the puck in instead. Since we’ve limited the zone we’re analyzing, I believe this type of stat can be translated to floorball — even though we don’t have a blue line like in hockey. What I’m really trying to capture is whether the defender’s action prevents the opponent from establishing offensive possession.

I’ve decided to call this stat "Prevented Entries", and here’s how I’ve defined success vs failure:

Successful:
・Breaks up the breakout
・Forces a turnover
・Forces a backward pass
・Forces the ball carrier out of the defensive third

Unsuccessful:
・Opponent gets a shot off
・Opponent completes a forward or central pass
・Opponent carries the ball forward or centrally
・Opponent earns a set piece (restart or free hit) in the zone

In semifinal three, the numbers looked like this for the two players we've been tracking:

André Andersson: 3 successful & 6 unsuccessful = 33.3% success rate

Eemeli Akola: 7 successful & 4 unsuccessful = 63.6% success rate

Akola not only faced more entry attempts — he also shut down nearly two-thirds of them. That’s the kind of impact you expect from a shutdown defenseman.

Andersson, on the other hand, ended up at 33.3%. While the sample is smaller, the numbers reinforce what we’ve seen in both video and one-on-one grading: Akola brings more defensive stability, especially when the game slows down and every possession matters.

In summary: In Game 3 against Falun, Akola posted stronger numbers in both categories. He had the higher one-on-one grade (4.11 vs 3.44) and the better Prevented Entry percentage (63.6% vs 33.3%). While Andersson still contributed with solid reads and smart positioning, Akola's performance stood out in terms of raw defensive impact.

Of course, average grades and Prevented Entry percentages don’t tell the whole story either. A player might be involved in just two situations, get perfect scores, and suddenly look like a defensive god — simply because their surrounding structure gave them favorable conditions.

That’s why I’ve started working on a new way to measure overall defensive impact in a game. The idea is to accumulate points based on:

・Many duels a player is involved in
・The difficulty or context of those duels
・How well they’re executed
・And potentially a few other measurable defensive values

This stat is still in the testing phase — but hopefully, it will be ready to roll out in the near future.

Keep an eye out — it might change the way we look at defensive performance.

/Mattias Hall
mattias@xprogress.se