In my pre-game analysis, I said:
"Stanford needs to fly from the get-go, play fast and incisively, maintain possession, and stretch the field. All three strikers need to get the ball in or near the box and run at people. Midfielders, that means they need service and that means you. All SU's attackers need to take a page from Kelley O'Hara's book and take shots on the volley, because at this level you don't always have time to trap, set, and shoot. I say let 'er rip. All of Stanford's strikers and a-mids need to be menacing. They need to run at people, they need to shoot. Pressure the UND backline and I think they will eventually tire and break. Defensively, Stanford needs to mark the UND strikers out of the match, deny their CAM the ball, and keep things wide."
Taking it a thought or so at a time:
Stanford needs to fly from the get-go, play fast and incisively, maintain possession, and stretch the field.
Stanford did come out flying, and UND struggled a bit as a result. But after 12 minutes or so UND began to pressure the ball well, and get some possession of its own. Stanford had trouble playing sharply and incisively in its attacking third. SU stretched the field but could have used even more support from the flanks in the form of overlapping runs.
All three strikers need to get the ball in or near the box and run at people. Midfielders, that means they need service and that means you. All SU's attackers need to take a page from Kelley O'Hara's book and take shots on the volley, because at this level you don't always have time to trap, set, and shoot. I say let 'er rip. All of Stanford's strikers and a-mids need to be menacing. They need to run at people, they need to shoot. Pressure the UND backline and I think they will eventually tire and break.
Kelly O'Hara terrorized their backline all game long and was unlucky not to get on the scoresheet. KO was the only forward who was not intimidated by the UND backline and ran at them with abandon. Levin was largely ineffective. Taylor was tracking way back into midfield for the ball, contributed defensively with several nice check-backs and takeaways, but her offensive runs were stymied. Several midfielders with space approaching the final third elected not to dribble but make passes into the heavily fortified UND bunker. I believe if you have space and the ball, run at people. Make them come out and defend you. You still have the option to pass into the box, and likely there will be fewer defenders there once you do. Things went better as the second half went on, as SU threw numbers forward. Alas, real chances were right at the keeper.
Defensively, Stanford needs to mark the UND strikers out of the match, deny their CAM the ball, and keep things wide.
Stanford was successful defensively. They held UND to one goal, and other than that one forgivable lapse they absolutely shut down the UND offense. The Stanford defense was nothing short of heroic.
All in all, two pretty evenly matched teams, and this particular time Stanford came out on the short end. Alas, in a single-elimination tournament, that means you go home.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Very good analysis once again, Ron.
Tough game, but a great goal by ND. Levin had a great year and has a loads of talent but gave up a very tough goal. I was impressed with ND's size. They all looked about 5-7 140-150lbs(maybe not that big). They definitely had the size advantage but the Card failed to finish. It was very fun soccer to watch and wished a shot would have fell Stanford's way.
They had a great season and hopefully, they'll be back next year. Should be interesting who they put to shore up the defense next year.
One other thing...your third point about "let 'er rip" really hit the mark. Press had a good game and pressured well but I did hear from the announcers that on one play she just held on for too many touches and ND collapsed on her. I saw the tape of the UNC/ND final and noticed the gamewinning goal by Casey N. was more to your liking. She got the ball, and shot after 1-2 touches creating space.
Kelley played with her and Tobin Heath of UNC on the youth teams and it's refreshing to see players who know when to pull the trigger.
Once again..good call.
BTW: I heard that about 30 minutes after the Friday game, the U-23 coach(Portland's goal keeper coach I believe) called KO and invited her to camp. I guess she's not blackballed by coach Tony DiCicco.
Jer
Jer
Jerry,
Thank you for your insights. I should have pointed out, as you rightly did, that C. Levin was terrific all year. I guess that is why I expected so much from her in the UND game. She did clang one off the crossbar which could have easily gone in.
You are also right that UND has a lot of tall players. But give Stanford credit, they won their share of air battles, including the one on the end of KO's cross that she made after nutmegging her marker along the endline (dazzling for us beggars for good football) -- that, like another header or two in the box, happened to go right to the keeper.
I am both glad and not surprised KO got a call-up. She clearly was the best player on the pitch for either team, by far. She may very well have been the most complete player in the Final Four. I meant to add that to my original post. I know now why she is number 19. 19 is 10 + 9. As evidenced in the UND game, she does the work of a #10 shirt (creates and sets up her attackers with nice possession, cdreativity, and passes) and she does the work of the number 9 shirt, the pure striker. She was unlucky not to have two goals against UND, but that is soccer. She also defended and won balls. I think a review of the tape of the UND game objectively shows all that.
Frankly, and maybe my bias does show an little bit here, I think she is as good or better than anyone on the senior women's side. I have not seen any of the women on the senior side exhibit the pure soccer skill on the ball and creative vision that Kelley has. And I think few would debate she is as good or better an athlete than any of them.
The thing about national sides is, especially with the senior side, it is as much about being a qualified player as it is "waiting your turn". Despite the gold medal, there were *at least* three women's national teamers who are too old and slow and should have been rotated off the team a year or two ago at the latest in favor of players like Kelley. But politics and personality get in the way sometimes.
One other thing I should have added to my origial post. Had this tournament been on the west coast instead of the east coast, with Stanford flying 1 hour and UND flying 6 hours, the scoresheet likely would also have been reversed for these two very evenly matched teams. Travel is not an excuse but it is a factor, unless a team as a full week at the game site to get acclimated, which I doubt Stanford had. That is just reality. Home field (in the case of UNC, essentially) or near home field (in the case of UND) is a real advantage.
Ron,
You may be a tad bias, but I value your opinion and am pleased by your glowing comments. Of course, I think my niece is special, and of course her uncle is biased. But, she sure is fun to watch and she frequently displays amazing talent. Being a fairly good football and track guy in my day(Ahem!) I can really appreciate not only talent, but pure hustle and drive. What Kelley lacks in talent she more than makes up for in the latter. Glad that you enjoy her play as much as I.
I'm embarrassed that I never thought of the travel aspect of the tourny and of course, you're right. Not an excuse, mind you, just a factor.
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
Jer
I think Kelley should be played more as a #10-shirt creative midfielder than a withdrawn forward which seems to be her role at Stanford. One thing Wayne Gretzky, the best hockey player of all time, said his father drilled into him as a kid was "pass the puck to where the guy is gonna be, not where he was [or is]".
In the ND game she showed that she can hold the ball very nicely in traffic, and spray Gretzky-like passes into space for her attackers. She is also like Carlos Valderrama (without the bleached afro). Like Valderrama, she can dish out assists to her strikers, but can also put the ball in the back of the net.
I think if Stanford drafts another pure striker then they put the #10 shirt on Kelley and let her quarterback the offense.
Oh, and unlike Carlos Valderrama, Kelley can also be counted on to defend.
Three Front Runners said...
I think Kelley should be played more as a #10-shirt creative midfielder than a withdrawn forward which seems to be her role at Stanford. One thing Wayne Gretzky, the best hockey player of all time, said his father drilled into him as a kid was "pass the puck to where the guy is gonna be, not where he was [or is]".
Ron, I've been thinking along the same lines. ...
more on that later.
As for Gretzky, you're probably right. I like a Lemueix comparison. Anyway, both had an above average ability to also "see" the whole playing area and know where the play was or should be.
In the ND game she showed that she can hold the ball very nicely in traffic, and spray Gretzky-like passes into space for her attackers. She is also like Carlos Valderrama (without the bleached afro). Like Valderrama, she can dish out assists to her strikers, but can also put the ball in the back of the net.
I think if Stanford drafts another pure striker then they put the #10 shirt on Kelley and let her quarterback the offense.
With the signing of tall striker Courtney Verloo(sp), who has done very well on the U-17 squad, Kelley may be moved back to midfield instead of Press. At first I thought Press should be moved back because of her early season individualism. But, Kelley has played MF before and knows it well.
Oh, and unlike Carlos Valderrama, Kelley can also be counted on to defend.
I think I told you this before...but when I first saw her play at the team level(when she was about 16), I realized that she was going to go places based on her tenacity alone. This realization was while I was watching her play "defense"!
Jerry,
Sorry, I didn't mean to slight Mario Lemieux, he was of course a great player and anyone who says maybe he was the best ever over Gretzky won't get a very spirited argument from me. In my days of hockey-fandom I didn't see Mario play as much as I did Gretzky, and I admit I probably have a lot of repressed memories of Mario absolutely shredding the Capitals for multiple goal games most times the Penguins came to town. Not to mention the fact that the Capital Centre (the former home rink of the Caps) was 2/3 Pittsburgh fans when Mario and company would come calling.
Aaaaaaanyway, I think Stanford would benefit by putting Kelly in as Central Attacking Midfielder and let her run the show, especially with Verloo, who I gather is a target forward, coming up. Kelley would still get her goals, but from there she can send balls to the three up top so they can score as well.
On the senior national team Kelley would be good back at the pure striker position. Too many of those ladies can't dribble their way out of a paper bag. Yes their forwards are good slashers, and there is something to be said for that, but I keep coming back to the idea that Kelley is as good a slasher as any of them, but in addition she will take on and beat people on on the dribble, a rarity in women's soccer at all levels except maybe the Brazilian senior national team in a World Cup year.
The last womens player for the US who would consistently run at people with the ball at her feet was Mia Hamm. With most of the other strikers I have seen on the womens senior side, I have to resist the almost overwhelming temptation to throw objects at the TV while exclaiming helpful suggestions along the lines of "YOU HAVE SPACE!!!! RUN AT THAT DEFENDER!!!!! Alas, they almost never do it.
Kelley dribbled through and around people all game long against Notre Dame. Yeah, she got dispossessed here and there, but so what. She did what attackers are supposed to do, which is attack, and not always dish a square ball or backpass at the first sign of potential defensive pressure.
Jerry,
Sorry, I didn't mean to slight Mario Lemieux, he was of course a great player and anyone who says maybe he was the best ever over Gretzky won't get a very spirited argument from me. In my days of hockey-fandom I didn't see Mario play as much as I did Gretzky, and I admit I probably have a lot of repressed memories of Mario absolutely shredding the Capitals for multiple goal games most times the Penguins came to town. Not to mention the fact that the Capital Centre (the former home rink of the Caps) was 2/3 Pittsburgh fans when Mario and company would come calling.
I certainly can understand why folks in the DC area root against the Steelers and/or Penguins. There are a ton of us transplants down here and occasionally outnumber the natives. I just threw Mario's name in the mix to rib you. Watching him was fun(like Gretzky) because something amazing could happen on any play.
Jerry,
Well, even though I don't follow hockey anymore, it seems the Penguins still routinely beat the stuffing out of the capitals. I guess the Pens have a new guy, I think his name is Crosby who is apparently another Lemieux from what I have heard.
Its been even longer since I followed american football, but I have always "despised" the Redskins. I read recently there was a game in DC between the Redskins and Steelers, and the Redskins own stadium was dominated by Steelers fans. On the radio the skins players were moaning and whining about that no end. I loved it.
Post a Comment