The consensus among the sages at Bigsoccer seems to be that Cheney, Heath, and O'Hara will be, in some order the top three picks in the Women's Professional Soccer draft. Generally, the prognostications run in about that order, as well.
It very well could be that way.Cheney is a pure striker, and the conventional wisdom in soccer is if a great striker is available, you pull the trigger and get him or her. It is hard to argue with wisdom like that. A fair number of bigsoccer folks have her as the #1 pick.
Tobin Heath is a great attacking midfielder, probably the best in the college game. She reads the game well, she creates, and she can run out of the midfield and score. Word has it in WPS coaching circles is she will go as the #1 pick to the Atlanta team.
My #1 pick, though, would be Kelley O'Hara. Why? Simple, really. KO is every bit as good and dangerous a striker as is Cheney. And she is as good in the attacking midfield as Heath. Throw in the facts that KO can defend. She can win balls. She is what the Dutch call a total footballer. Think Johan Cruyff.
And let's not forget we are talking professional soccer here. If I am a professional coach I want the best soccer player over the best striker, best midfielder, or best whatever for my team. If your team has depth in the midfield, then you tell KO "we'll find you in the box, you just please put the round thing in the back of the net". If you have depth up top, you play KO as withdrawn forward or as an attacking mid. If you have depth both places, you let her run the flanks and let her shred those slow, plodding WPS outside backs. If you need someone to just go in there, run the show and play #10 quarterback for you, well there you go, KO is a player that makes everyone around her better.
Finally, she has got the intangibles. There are a lot of people more soccer-knowledgeble than I am who say no one plays with more heart, with more fire, with more desire. I'm reminded of what Pat Quinn, former coach of the LA Kings hockey team, said in response to a reporter asking about whether the expensive trade he made for Wayne Gretzky was worth it. He responded by recounting a game in which the Kings were down 4-2 with just a few minutes left in the third. Gretzky skated back to the bench after another double-shift and noticed more than a few of his teammates seemed resigned to losing the game. "C'mon guys, we are only two down. We can do this", was Gretzky's exhortation. Sure enough, the Kings pulled it out. Quinn concluded, "How do you put a price tag on THAT?"
Kelley O'Hara was Wayne Gretzky to the Stanford Cardinal. That is the kind of player you draft, no matter who else is available.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
UVA Takes College Cup
Never has egg all over my face tasted so good.
I had written UVA off, but UVA proves me wrong and takes the Men's National Championship in Soccer. It wasn't the prettiest match, a 0-0 draw after regulation and overtime, but PK's are always dramatic, and these were no exception, with UVA prevailing 3-2 from the penalty spot.
Technically speaking, UVA was inferior to Akron, just as they were inferior to Wake Forest in the semi. However, UVA has the best goalkeeper, backline, and defensive midfield in the college game, and this enabled the Cavaliers to neutralize the dangerous attacks of both of those offensive juggernauts.
Some thoughts:
Diego Restrepo, the UVA keeper, ought to turn pro. Now. The guy is that good. A very athletic keeper, reads the game well, excellent positionally, and a clutch shot-stopper.
Jonathan Villanueva played like a true #10 shirt. He was calm on the ball, let the game come to him, and made the great plays when he had to. I don't know if he has the speed and athleticism to succeed in MLS, but I have been wrong about him before, to say the least.
In Friday's semi against Wake Forest, I screamed so loud at both UVA goals that my son said he heard me from the middle of the back yard. My back yard is 4 acres, and mostly wooded. My four year old daughter did not know what to think, so she started crying. She was easily consoled once she was convinced Daddy (yes, I'm "Daddy" now to my two youngest children anyway, "Papa" and "Pop" having for some reason fallen out of favor) was indeed happy. Nontheless Daddy knows to try to keep a bit of a lid on it next time.
So, UVA's national championship stands in stark contrast to the wreckage of my season as a supporter of DC United (crashed, burned, did not make playoffs), Virginia Tech (one of the soccer-minnows of the ACC, devoured by the sharks), the Stanford Women (defeated in College Cup finals), and the USMNT, who did well and qualifed for the World Cup but suffered some potentially catastrophic injuries in the process.
I'll take it.
I had written UVA off, but UVA proves me wrong and takes the Men's National Championship in Soccer. It wasn't the prettiest match, a 0-0 draw after regulation and overtime, but PK's are always dramatic, and these were no exception, with UVA prevailing 3-2 from the penalty spot.
Technically speaking, UVA was inferior to Akron, just as they were inferior to Wake Forest in the semi. However, UVA has the best goalkeeper, backline, and defensive midfield in the college game, and this enabled the Cavaliers to neutralize the dangerous attacks of both of those offensive juggernauts.
Some thoughts:
Diego Restrepo, the UVA keeper, ought to turn pro. Now. The guy is that good. A very athletic keeper, reads the game well, excellent positionally, and a clutch shot-stopper.
Jonathan Villanueva played like a true #10 shirt. He was calm on the ball, let the game come to him, and made the great plays when he had to. I don't know if he has the speed and athleticism to succeed in MLS, but I have been wrong about him before, to say the least.
In Friday's semi against Wake Forest, I screamed so loud at both UVA goals that my son said he heard me from the middle of the back yard. My back yard is 4 acres, and mostly wooded. My four year old daughter did not know what to think, so she started crying. She was easily consoled once she was convinced Daddy (yes, I'm "Daddy" now to my two youngest children anyway, "Papa" and "Pop" having for some reason fallen out of favor) was indeed happy. Nontheless Daddy knows to try to keep a bit of a lid on it next time.
So, UVA's national championship stands in stark contrast to the wreckage of my season as a supporter of DC United (crashed, burned, did not make playoffs), Virginia Tech (one of the soccer-minnows of the ACC, devoured by the sharks), the Stanford Women (defeated in College Cup finals), and the USMNT, who did well and qualifed for the World Cup but suffered some potentially catastrophic injuries in the process.
I'll take it.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Ole-Ole-Ole-Ole, UVA!!! UVA!!!
GREAT win by the UVA men to gain the College Cup final.
Gotta tell ya, I have been a pretty harsh critic of Virginia #10 Jonathan Villanueva over the years, but tonight he was a true #10 shirt and played dazzlingly well. His gorgeous, dribbling run into the box and shot led to the first goal on a rebound.
Then, in golden goal overtime, his lovely, sumptuous, exquisite, sublime, perfectly weighted long ball out of the back to his frontrunner was as nice ball as you will see anywhere, at any level. Ronaldinho could not have hit it any better. Great chip by the striker for the winner.
Wow, way to prove me wrong, UVA.
Gotta tell ya, I have been a pretty harsh critic of Virginia #10 Jonathan Villanueva over the years, but tonight he was a true #10 shirt and played dazzlingly well. His gorgeous, dribbling run into the box and shot led to the first goal on a rebound.
Then, in golden goal overtime, his lovely, sumptuous, exquisite, sublime, perfectly weighted long ball out of the back to his frontrunner was as nice ball as you will see anywhere, at any level. Ronaldinho could not have hit it any better. Great chip by the striker for the winner.
Wow, way to prove me wrong, UVA.
Another Look
Having a 3rd look at SU-UNC final. Will post thoughts while replay in progress.
Kira Maker poor clearance out of back straight to UNC. UNC makes 2 passes, then final ball in for score. Maker gave ball repeatedly to UNC whether pressured or not.
Noyola terrible. Can't hold ball in traffic, passes straight to other team. What few passes went to her team were so slow and lazy they were useless and led to loss of possession. PR was absolutely correct to sub her out. Hate to say it, but she was the worst player on the pitch for either team. Heath and McCann were better AM's, but were no where near good enough. This is why KO, CP, and to a LT had to do the AM's jobs for them in addition to playing as strikers.
28th minute, Noyola out, LT moved back to midfield, Verloo up top.
Stanford overall in 1st half is just terrible. They are a day late and a dollar short to every ball. Not even in the match. If UNC could shoot the score would already be 3-0. UNC is good, but Stanford is so out of it they are making UNC look like Brazil.
37th minute. Sigh. its almost like Kira Maker is TRYING to kick the ball to UNC.
McCann off in favor is Noguiera. MN an improvement.
Levin in for LT. Definite improvement.
2nd half. Stanford playing a bit better, but still cannot keep up with UNC tempo. Just no gas in the tank for the Cardinal. If they had played like this in the NCAA first round they would have been eliminated in the first round. Of that I have no doubt.
Press active, but her first touch is off. Hit a nice long range shot, but over the bar.
Overall Stanford's play in 2nd half is an upgrade for the first half's "terrible" to, I'd say, "almost average". It is now about the level of, saym a 35th-ranked college team.
Red card might have sealed SU's fate, but it is also more than probable that Stanford still would have lost. In this game this Stanford team was a shadow of the team that won 5 games to get to the final.
Maker's distribution in second half every bit as bad as in first half. EVERYTHING she kicked up the field went to UNC. Maker should have been yanked at the end of the first half. Possession was a big enough problem for Stanford, but Maker GAVE them numerous, quality, dangerous possessions.
Unfortunate 2nd yellow for KO. Stanford not in match before red, had it not happened result likely would have been same.
All over but the shouting now.
CP unfortunately clearly offside on apparent late goal. Correct call.
Bottom line, Stanford physically just did not have it in that match. They just didn't.
Kira Maker poor clearance out of back straight to UNC. UNC makes 2 passes, then final ball in for score. Maker gave ball repeatedly to UNC whether pressured or not.
Noyola terrible. Can't hold ball in traffic, passes straight to other team. What few passes went to her team were so slow and lazy they were useless and led to loss of possession. PR was absolutely correct to sub her out. Hate to say it, but she was the worst player on the pitch for either team. Heath and McCann were better AM's, but were no where near good enough. This is why KO, CP, and to a LT had to do the AM's jobs for them in addition to playing as strikers.
28th minute, Noyola out, LT moved back to midfield, Verloo up top.
Stanford overall in 1st half is just terrible. They are a day late and a dollar short to every ball. Not even in the match. If UNC could shoot the score would already be 3-0. UNC is good, but Stanford is so out of it they are making UNC look like Brazil.
37th minute. Sigh. its almost like Kira Maker is TRYING to kick the ball to UNC.
McCann off in favor is Noguiera. MN an improvement.
Levin in for LT. Definite improvement.
2nd half. Stanford playing a bit better, but still cannot keep up with UNC tempo. Just no gas in the tank for the Cardinal. If they had played like this in the NCAA first round they would have been eliminated in the first round. Of that I have no doubt.
Press active, but her first touch is off. Hit a nice long range shot, but over the bar.
Overall Stanford's play in 2nd half is an upgrade for the first half's "terrible" to, I'd say, "almost average". It is now about the level of, saym a 35th-ranked college team.
Red card might have sealed SU's fate, but it is also more than probable that Stanford still would have lost. In this game this Stanford team was a shadow of the team that won 5 games to get to the final.
Maker's distribution in second half every bit as bad as in first half. EVERYTHING she kicked up the field went to UNC. Maker should have been yanked at the end of the first half. Possession was a big enough problem for Stanford, but Maker GAVE them numerous, quality, dangerous possessions.
Unfortunate 2nd yellow for KO. Stanford not in match before red, had it not happened result likely would have been same.
All over but the shouting now.
CP unfortunately clearly offside on apparent late goal. Correct call.
Bottom line, Stanford physically just did not have it in that match. They just didn't.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
OK Herre we go
I watched the Stanford-UNC game last night on the DVR, and here are my thoughts, in no particular order.
This was not the same Stanford team I watched on Friday. Clearly several players were not feeling well. When making a statement like that, the customary rejoinder in sporting circles is "well that is no excuse". What does that really mean, anyway, this stuff about "not an excuse"? I've never really understood that. If nothing is an excuse, why not force injured players to play through any and all injuries all the time? "Hey! Your broken left femur and your torn-to-shreds right anterior cruciate ligament are NOT EXCUSES! Put down those crutches, and get off that bench and get in there, and get me some GOALS! NOW!!!" If a soccer team loses a game because one one of the team buses, the one with all the starters and coaches on it, tragically drives over a cliff killing all aboard an hour before kickoff, is that still not an excuse? I guess not, because the mantra in sports is nothing, nothing, nothing is an excuse. Now I get it. I think.
OK, so a strength-sapping, dehydrating, cognitive fog-inducing stomach flu nagging 4 or 5 of your starters is not an "excuse". I will stipulate to that. But can we at least call it "relevant"?. Several of the Stanford players reportedly came down with some kind of stomach thing after Friday's game. But its not an excuse. But I will call it a reality. This showed especially in the first half, when Stanford was not even in the game. Stanford played better in the second half when they subbed in some apparently healthier bodies, but still it wasn't enough.
The goal. I don't think there was anything the defense or the goalkeeper could do to keep that one out of the back of the net. The perfect, bending, weighted cross was placed perfectly for the onrushing McDonald. It was too far out for Kira Maker to come off her line for. It was placed perfectly between the central defenders. It might be argued that Noquiera was given too much space to make the cross, but bear in mind she made the cross from beyond downtown. The dmids know that high balls from there the defense can clear from danger all day long while eating a ham sandwich. The girl just hit the thing with amazing power and precision. It was just a great play. Every once in a while, in both football and in futbol, a "Hail Mary" finds its mark. It happens.
Teresa Noyola might be a Carlos Valderrama against lower-table teams like Oregon State or St. Marys or whoever, but she was invisible in this College Cup. In both games, both the other attacking midfielders did far better than she did. While TN was in, KO had to track back to TN's area to get the ball from Riley or other defenders because who knows where TN was. Levin played better at that position than TN did, and Levin was playing out of her natural positon of forward.
Lindsay Taylor, for the send year in a row, did not have a good College Cup. Like TN, she likes to feast on lesser teams, but when the competion is a national powerhouse in a win or go home situation, she wilts. Because LT was particularly ineffective as a high forward in the UNC game, this allowed UNC to key more on KO and CP.
Kira Maker's problematic distribution in the UCLA game became outright frightful in the UNC game. Kira is a good shot stopper, she is a good positional keeper, but in this Final Four her distribution (punts, goal kicks, throws, free kicks) went STRAIGHT to the other team ALMOST 100% of the time, the whole game. As a matter of fact, if we want to lay some blame for the goal, blame Maker, because UNC's Noquiera got the ball FROM KIRA MAKER. Shortly after UNC's goal, they almost scored again, twice, because Maker kept GIVING THEM the ball on a silver platter IN OR NEAR THE STANFORD HALF. You can't do that against UNC and expect to win. The miracle is that Maker's passing to the other team did not result in a 5-0 blowout. Credit the Cardinal backline for keeping the scoreline respectable.
On the offside calls, who knows. Given the poor camera angles I can't really make a judgment.
KO played like she cared. She played like it was her last college game, because it was. She took some risks, made some necessary professional fouls because the desperate situation called for it, and she got a couple yellow cards. Had more Cardinal players played as hard and cared as much as Kelley did, yeah there would have been more yellows, but maybe Kelley could have gotten by with taking one for the team instead of two, and maybe just maybe the game result might have been different.
UNC is the only team in women's college soccer that has a comprehensive system. Other teams, even great teams like Stanford, employ various situational tactics, and though they do so very well most of the time, it is usually still a conscious, deliberate process. UNC, though, has a system which is drilled into these players so deeply, much of the time they do it unconsciously. They don't have to think about it. I think some coaches need to study and emulate UNC's approach.
Take, for example, the ball-pressure portion of their system. The girls don't even have to think about it. A pass by the other team is made, for example, from a defender to a midfielder. In response, one UNC girl bodies up and pressures the ball immediately, and in a flash another joins in. Other nearby players instantly adjust to clog the passing lanes. Everybody instantly knows what do do, and they do it so well it looks choreographed. When you have the ball against this scheme, your options dry up pretty quickly.
When UNC has the ball, there is nobody in women's soccer better at making off the ball runs. The ball carrier almost always has multiple passing options. It's automatic. It's, shall we say, systematic.
UNC's systematic approach is so ingrained in that program, you can see the same style of play express itself year after year after year. It doesn't matter who is playing, the system remains the same, and it is very effective.
So that's it. The season is in the books, with UNC ranked #1 and Stanford #2. I said before that any of the final four could win the whole thing. And one of them did.
This was not the same Stanford team I watched on Friday. Clearly several players were not feeling well. When making a statement like that, the customary rejoinder in sporting circles is "well that is no excuse". What does that really mean, anyway, this stuff about "not an excuse"? I've never really understood that. If nothing is an excuse, why not force injured players to play through any and all injuries all the time? "Hey! Your broken left femur and your torn-to-shreds right anterior cruciate ligament are NOT EXCUSES! Put down those crutches, and get off that bench and get in there, and get me some GOALS! NOW!!!" If a soccer team loses a game because one one of the team buses, the one with all the starters and coaches on it, tragically drives over a cliff killing all aboard an hour before kickoff, is that still not an excuse? I guess not, because the mantra in sports is nothing, nothing, nothing is an excuse. Now I get it. I think.
OK, so a strength-sapping, dehydrating, cognitive fog-inducing stomach flu nagging 4 or 5 of your starters is not an "excuse". I will stipulate to that. But can we at least call it "relevant"?. Several of the Stanford players reportedly came down with some kind of stomach thing after Friday's game. But its not an excuse. But I will call it a reality. This showed especially in the first half, when Stanford was not even in the game. Stanford played better in the second half when they subbed in some apparently healthier bodies, but still it wasn't enough.
The goal. I don't think there was anything the defense or the goalkeeper could do to keep that one out of the back of the net. The perfect, bending, weighted cross was placed perfectly for the onrushing McDonald. It was too far out for Kira Maker to come off her line for. It was placed perfectly between the central defenders. It might be argued that Noquiera was given too much space to make the cross, but bear in mind she made the cross from beyond downtown. The dmids know that high balls from there the defense can clear from danger all day long while eating a ham sandwich. The girl just hit the thing with amazing power and precision. It was just a great play. Every once in a while, in both football and in futbol, a "Hail Mary" finds its mark. It happens.
Teresa Noyola might be a Carlos Valderrama against lower-table teams like Oregon State or St. Marys or whoever, but she was invisible in this College Cup. In both games, both the other attacking midfielders did far better than she did. While TN was in, KO had to track back to TN's area to get the ball from Riley or other defenders because who knows where TN was. Levin played better at that position than TN did, and Levin was playing out of her natural positon of forward.
Lindsay Taylor, for the send year in a row, did not have a good College Cup. Like TN, she likes to feast on lesser teams, but when the competion is a national powerhouse in a win or go home situation, she wilts. Because LT was particularly ineffective as a high forward in the UNC game, this allowed UNC to key more on KO and CP.
Kira Maker's problematic distribution in the UCLA game became outright frightful in the UNC game. Kira is a good shot stopper, she is a good positional keeper, but in this Final Four her distribution (punts, goal kicks, throws, free kicks) went STRAIGHT to the other team ALMOST 100% of the time, the whole game. As a matter of fact, if we want to lay some blame for the goal, blame Maker, because UNC's Noquiera got the ball FROM KIRA MAKER. Shortly after UNC's goal, they almost scored again, twice, because Maker kept GIVING THEM the ball on a silver platter IN OR NEAR THE STANFORD HALF. You can't do that against UNC and expect to win. The miracle is that Maker's passing to the other team did not result in a 5-0 blowout. Credit the Cardinal backline for keeping the scoreline respectable.
On the offside calls, who knows. Given the poor camera angles I can't really make a judgment.
KO played like she cared. She played like it was her last college game, because it was. She took some risks, made some necessary professional fouls because the desperate situation called for it, and she got a couple yellow cards. Had more Cardinal players played as hard and cared as much as Kelley did, yeah there would have been more yellows, but maybe Kelley could have gotten by with taking one for the team instead of two, and maybe just maybe the game result might have been different.
UNC is the only team in women's college soccer that has a comprehensive system. Other teams, even great teams like Stanford, employ various situational tactics, and though they do so very well most of the time, it is usually still a conscious, deliberate process. UNC, though, has a system which is drilled into these players so deeply, much of the time they do it unconsciously. They don't have to think about it. I think some coaches need to study and emulate UNC's approach.
Take, for example, the ball-pressure portion of their system. The girls don't even have to think about it. A pass by the other team is made, for example, from a defender to a midfielder. In response, one UNC girl bodies up and pressures the ball immediately, and in a flash another joins in. Other nearby players instantly adjust to clog the passing lanes. Everybody instantly knows what do do, and they do it so well it looks choreographed. When you have the ball against this scheme, your options dry up pretty quickly.
When UNC has the ball, there is nobody in women's soccer better at making off the ball runs. The ball carrier almost always has multiple passing options. It's automatic. It's, shall we say, systematic.
UNC's systematic approach is so ingrained in that program, you can see the same style of play express itself year after year after year. It doesn't matter who is playing, the system remains the same, and it is very effective.
So that's it. The season is in the books, with UNC ranked #1 and Stanford #2. I said before that any of the final four could win the whole thing. And one of them did.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Bad News Travels Fast
I have not seen the match yet -- its on my DVR. But of course I know that Stanford fell to UNC yesterday in the College Cup finale.
I have to admit I had a bad feeling going in to the match. The cold in College Station gave way to RAIN and cold. In any field team sport, a wet, sloppy field is a great equalizer. This sport (not to mention this game) is no exception. I'm not even going to talk about the flu, which was a lurking concern in my mind for weeks.
This was overshadowed by the sense of foreboding that NC's strength corresponded exactly to Stanford's weakness. I have written before about how UNC is without peer in the college ranks in its ability to swarm the ball and pressure the ball in twos and threes relentlessly and mecilessly. They do this far better than any college team , and do it as well as any professional team. Though Stanford's poise on the ball in their defensive midfield improved markedly, it apparently was not enough to overcome UNC's strangling pressure. Both coaches attested to this reality in their post game comments.
I nonetheless remain persuaded of two things:
1) Kelley O'Hara has shown herself to be the best soccer player in the country. Through 26 matches, 25 of them consecutive victories, this player has proven beyond doubt that she was the best player (over the whole course of the season) in the country. She led her team and entire the nation in scoring. She made everybody on her team a better player. I have no idea what else she could possibly have done to prove herself. Don't take my word for it, though. I am just an opinionated soccer fan. Ask someone who actually knows something about soccer, starting with every one of the coaches Stanford played against this year, including Anson Dorrance. Actually you don't need to even ask them. Just use that newfangled internet-thingie and look up their post-game quotes.
2) Stanford, despite its loss in the finale and despite its few weaknesses which I have written about, showed itself, over the course of the whole season, to be the best soccer team in the country. They won the PAC-10, which is just about as hard as winning the College Cup. The PAC-10 is the best women's soccer conference in the country. Yes, better than the ACC, I don't care what the season (especially the near-meaningless early season) head-to-head stats say. The ACC does have North Carolina, but the ACC does not have Stanford, UCLA, and USC. Make no mistake, it's nice winning the NCAAs. But lets remember it is a large, single-elimination tournament. The gambling term "crap-shoot" is, at least in part, rightly applied to such tournaments. The best team does not always win in such a scenario.
I have to admit I had a bad feeling going in to the match. The cold in College Station gave way to RAIN and cold. In any field team sport, a wet, sloppy field is a great equalizer. This sport (not to mention this game) is no exception. I'm not even going to talk about the flu, which was a lurking concern in my mind for weeks.
This was overshadowed by the sense of foreboding that NC's strength corresponded exactly to Stanford's weakness. I have written before about how UNC is without peer in the college ranks in its ability to swarm the ball and pressure the ball in twos and threes relentlessly and mecilessly. They do this far better than any college team , and do it as well as any professional team. Though Stanford's poise on the ball in their defensive midfield improved markedly, it apparently was not enough to overcome UNC's strangling pressure. Both coaches attested to this reality in their post game comments.
I nonetheless remain persuaded of two things:
1) Kelley O'Hara has shown herself to be the best soccer player in the country. Through 26 matches, 25 of them consecutive victories, this player has proven beyond doubt that she was the best player (over the whole course of the season) in the country. She led her team and entire the nation in scoring. She made everybody on her team a better player. I have no idea what else she could possibly have done to prove herself. Don't take my word for it, though. I am just an opinionated soccer fan. Ask someone who actually knows something about soccer, starting with every one of the coaches Stanford played against this year, including Anson Dorrance. Actually you don't need to even ask them. Just use that newfangled internet-thingie and look up their post-game quotes.
2) Stanford, despite its loss in the finale and despite its few weaknesses which I have written about, showed itself, over the course of the whole season, to be the best soccer team in the country. They won the PAC-10, which is just about as hard as winning the College Cup. The PAC-10 is the best women's soccer conference in the country. Yes, better than the ACC, I don't care what the season (especially the near-meaningless early season) head-to-head stats say. The ACC does have North Carolina, but the ACC does not have Stanford, UCLA, and USC. Make no mistake, it's nice winning the NCAAs. But lets remember it is a large, single-elimination tournament. The gambling term "crap-shoot" is, at least in part, rightly applied to such tournaments. The best team does not always win in such a scenario.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Random Thoughts on Stanford Game
I'm not sure what is up with Noyola. In the first half, she was ineffective and she got subbed out. She came back in in 2h and was steady, but she was hardly the calming and creative force in midfield she is billed to be.
I fail to understand how the denizens of bigsoccer can be so critical of Ratcliffe. His team is 25-0! Hello! News flash, he might not yet be Guus Hiddink or Anson Dorrance, but I'd say the guy can coach.
Some perspective: 1 Stanford has had, BY FAR, the toughest matches of any of the final 4 teams. 2. In UCLA Stanford was playing a talented, and intense PAC-10 rival. That match was WAR, which is why it was, at times, not the prettiest, free-flowing soccer either team has played. Absolute WAR.
How anybody can rake the SU backline over the coals is beyond me. The back 4 were GREAT. Yeah, Cheney found some space on her goal, but it was one of the few times ALL NIGHT LONG the best pure striker (yes, she is the best "pure striker" in the country. Kelley O'Hara is the best SOCCER PLAYER in the country) could turn on her defender anywhere near the box. Plus, 99 times out of 100 Kira Maker parries that shot effortlessly over the bar for the save and Stanford gets the shutout.
The dmids were far more poised on the ball than I have ever seen them. Bravo. Pressure the ball a bit better when the other team has it, and they are in good shape.
About the only thing I would tell the Stanford players if I were the coach is to cut down on the number of unforced passes to the other team, especially from the GK position. That is entirely doable.
That, and please lets get our corner kicks more than three feet off the ground.
Otherwise, go out there, play hard and have fun, and bring home the cup.
I fail to understand how the denizens of bigsoccer can be so critical of Ratcliffe. His team is 25-0! Hello! News flash, he might not yet be Guus Hiddink or Anson Dorrance, but I'd say the guy can coach.
Some perspective: 1 Stanford has had, BY FAR, the toughest matches of any of the final 4 teams. 2. In UCLA Stanford was playing a talented, and intense PAC-10 rival. That match was WAR, which is why it was, at times, not the prettiest, free-flowing soccer either team has played. Absolute WAR.
How anybody can rake the SU backline over the coals is beyond me. The back 4 were GREAT. Yeah, Cheney found some space on her goal, but it was one of the few times ALL NIGHT LONG the best pure striker (yes, she is the best "pure striker" in the country. Kelley O'Hara is the best SOCCER PLAYER in the country) could turn on her defender anywhere near the box. Plus, 99 times out of 100 Kira Maker parries that shot effortlessly over the bar for the save and Stanford gets the shutout.
The dmids were far more poised on the ball than I have ever seen them. Bravo. Pressure the ball a bit better when the other team has it, and they are in good shape.
About the only thing I would tell the Stanford players if I were the coach is to cut down on the number of unforced passes to the other team, especially from the GK position. That is entirely doable.
That, and please lets get our corner kicks more than three feet off the ground.
Otherwise, go out there, play hard and have fun, and bring home the cup.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Da-le, Da-le, Da-le Car-di-nal!
That was just a flat-out gripping game between Stanford and UCLA.
Frankly, Stanford struggled until their turning point, which was Kelley O’Hara’s rasping, driven, dipping bomb from downtown for the 1-0 scoreline. KO shifted them into the next gear, and Stanford elevated their game after that.
Lauren Cheney is a great pure striker. Sydney Leroux is frighteningly fast, just a bit raw and a bit unlucky not to have scored.
Christen Press played the role of the classic striker. Some great strikers disappear for long stretches of the game, but then, like lightning come out of nowhere and electrify the match. She got a few touches early in the match, virtually none in the second half, but then finds a little space and smashes home a grass-burner that is too hot for the keep to win the game in OT. Wow.
Stanford’s defensive midfield was light-years better than they were in the Cal game. The backline was great.
I’d say Kira Maker needs to distribute better. Too many of her kicks went straight to blue shirts. I am a little mystified as to why she didn’t stop Cheney’s (admittedly great) shot. It went right by her hand, I thought for sure she would parry it over. It’s possible she lost sight of the ball. Oh, well, that’s soccer.
Bottom line is, like Brazil, Stanford got stronger as the match progressed, especially in the late stages and overtime.
Frankly, Stanford struggled until their turning point, which was Kelley O’Hara’s rasping, driven, dipping bomb from downtown for the 1-0 scoreline. KO shifted them into the next gear, and Stanford elevated their game after that.
Lauren Cheney is a great pure striker. Sydney Leroux is frighteningly fast, just a bit raw and a bit unlucky not to have scored.
Christen Press played the role of the classic striker. Some great strikers disappear for long stretches of the game, but then, like lightning come out of nowhere and electrify the match. She got a few touches early in the match, virtually none in the second half, but then finds a little space and smashes home a grass-burner that is too hot for the keep to win the game in OT. Wow.
Stanford’s defensive midfield was light-years better than they were in the Cal game. The backline was great.
I’d say Kira Maker needs to distribute better. Too many of her kicks went straight to blue shirts. I am a little mystified as to why she didn’t stop Cheney’s (admittedly great) shot. It went right by her hand, I thought for sure she would parry it over. It’s possible she lost sight of the ball. Oh, well, that’s soccer.
Bottom line is, like Brazil, Stanford got stronger as the match progressed, especially in the late stages and overtime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
