Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023

Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 (/thread-24310.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - 81alum - 10-14-2023

We tie Washington 1-1 tonight at home. Frustrating in that we took 31 shots to their 5, had 10 corners to their 1, and still just 1-1. Montoya got our goal on an assist from Kitahata. Washington scored first and we got the equalizer after 48, so it obviously could have been worse. We are still unbeaten at 12-0-2.

Hieronymus - Hieronymus - 10-19-2023

Solid win vs. OSU today 3-1 though they should have scored double. Maybe the worst shooting game I have seen from Aikey, though the UW game wasn’t shown where I live. Montoya’s first start back and Pagador’s first game in a while so good news on the injury front.

Overall I had 2 worries for this team.
1. Injuries but now Pagador and Montoya are back so all good
2. This is picky but the CB pairing has seemed just slightly off. See the Colorado goal as an example or around min 16 vs. OSU. I am being very picky though.
3 The new one might be poor finishing. Too early to say, but it is something to watch.

Overall though I am much more bullish on this year’s team. Last year in tough games the midfield was a full-on mess. This year Harvey and Bhuta have had a big positive impact on the midfield ( though it looked like Bhuta was right back today). It makes me much more optimistic on the team’s tournament chances this year.

As a side note I will give Ratcliff major props. He has been very willing to play a number of Freshmen a lot of minutes even over more experienced players, and he seems to have maintained team coherence at the same time. That isn’t easy to do.

We will know more after SC and UCLA, but I am feeling good right now.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - 81alum - 10-20-2023

Yes, after more than two decades of consistently fielding 20-win teams, three national championships, and making the NCAAs every single year, I think Ratcliffe needs to be considered one of the very best coaches Stanford has or maybe has had, behind Tara, Dick Gould, Paul John Dunning, Mark Marquess, and no doubt a few others. But he just quietly keeps recruiting, winning, and advancing, year after year after year.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - BobK - 10-20-2023

Plus John Dunning :)

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - Jamesy - 10-20-2023

(10-20-2023, 10:59 AM)81alum Wrote: Yes, after more than two decades of consistently fielding 20-win teams, three national championships, and making the NCAAs every single year, I think Ratcliffe needs to be considered one of the very best coaches Stanford has or maybe has had, behind Tara, Dick Gould, Paul Dunning, Mark Marquess, and no doubt a few others. But he just quietly keeps recruiting, winning, and advancing, year after year after year.

I would put Ratcliffe ahead of Marquess and probably Dunning as well. He is a great recruiter and coach.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - 81alum - 10-20-2023

(10-20-2023, 11:16 AM)BobK Wrote: Plus John Dunning :)

mea culpa. Corrected. I dunno why I did that.

(10-20-2023, 03:24 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I would put Ratcliffe ahead of Marquess and probably Dunning as well. He is a great recruiter and coach.

You may be right to do so. I don't have the expertise to rank that finely. But he surely will go down as one of the greatest Stanford coaches of all time if he keeps this up for another decade....

...which brings me to another question. Given that women's soccer is one of Stanford's finest programs, why is there relatively light interest in it on this board? I would love to have someone who is truly expert on soccer posting here. I am not that person, even though I know a good thing when I see it. Why doesn't one of Stanford's consistently best sports have the following on the Cardboard that it deserves?

Seriously folks, rather than beat your heads against the Jerod Haase wall, or obsess over a 2-10 rebuilding team, why not follow and get excited by a national championship contender? (Ranked 6 in RPI at the moment.)

Is it that most folks on this board just don't like the world's most popular sport?

For me, the barrier is knowledge. I really need to hear from fans who have played or coached the game and understand it more deeply. Watching a soccer match must be more engrossing if you know the strategies and tactics than if you don't--the same as all sports.

spike - Spike - 10-20-2023

Totally agree that soccer doesn’t get enough attention on the Cardboard.
Im a soccer newbie and still can’t figure out “offside”.
Help!

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - cardfan77 - 10-20-2023

I also wish there were more buzz and chatter on other Stanford’s sports throughout the year and not only when they win a big game or championship.

I would add Lele Forood to that list of best Stanford coaches. Jeremy Gunn has done fantastic job since he started at Stanford. I wouldn’t add him to the list yet.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - BobK - 10-20-2023

John Tanner womens water polo

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - oldalum - 10-20-2023

(10-20-2023, 03:58 PM)81alum Wrote: For me, the barrier is knowledge. I really need to hear from fans who have played or coached the game and understand it more deeply.

you're talking about Viking Guy, who used to provide expert analysis but simply disappeared. VG come back!
I'm not an expert but longtime W Soccer season ticket holder and will try to chip in on occasion.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - BobK - 10-21-2023

And we miss Stanford Professor Hank. Forget his handle Big women’s soccer fan

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 10-21-2023

(10-21-2023, 06:19 AM)BobK Wrote: And we miss Stanford Professor Hank. Forget his handle Big women’s soccer fan

... and a big football fan. Brilliant legal scholar at the intersection of law and science. Not positive, but I think his Bootleg handle was muiron.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - BobK - 10-21-2023

Of course Muiron I follow him on Twitter great reads there

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - Spiny_Norman - 10-21-2023

Anne Walker is on her way to that pantheon of great Stanford coaches too.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - M T - 10-21-2023

With all these great coaches, somebody (plural) has been doing something right.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - oldalum - 10-22-2023

We play Oregon today at noon, broadcast on the Pac-12 network. Oregon is in last place in the Pac-12 with a record of 0-7-0, and their overall record is 0-13-2. We are in second place with a record of 6-0-1, overall 13-0-2. But the matchup may be even worse than it looks: Cal just beat Oregon 8-1 which is the most goals Cal has ever scored in a Pac-12 game. So how did Cal do it? One factor is that the Ducks' GK against Cal was a true freshman standing 5' 8" and several of Cal's goals passed directly over her and under the crossbar, despite her best jumps. Oregon has played a 5' 11" GK in other games, so our shooting strategy may depend on which one we see. Possible rain and wet field may be a wild card.

After this, our finishing stretch will be the toughest part of the conference season : at USC (tied for 3rd place in Pac-12) and UCLA (1st place), then home against Cal (5th place). Good prep for NCAAs and will determine whether we can retain our current #4 seed by the NCAA D1 committee and chance to host a quarterfinal.

Hieronymus - Hieronymus - 10-22-2023

Pedestrian 2-0 win against a bad Oregon team today. The team moved the ball well and really only gave up one real chance late when Pagador overcommitted. However, they didn’t generate a lot of great chances out of open play despite the shot totals. Goal 1 was a dreadful Oregon turnover that Aikey finished nicely and the second was off a corner. The team did have 4-5 good chances that they didn’t finish, so again they probably should have doubled their output.

Stanford’s starting line up claimed to be a 3-4-3 and for once I agree. Bhuta right, Aikey left, Harvey back and Doms forward. This flipped into a 4-3-3 I believe in both halves when Williams and later Pagador came on for a forward. I now suspect this 3-4-3 was the OSU line up as well and Bhuta was right mid not right back. Will quick recheck tomorrow night.

I am curious if the 3-4-3 was used for offense against inferior teams, if this is intended as the new normal to get a better midfield player on the field, or if Ratcliffe just wants options. Anybody able to tell what the UW lineup was? Again I didn’t have the game televised where I am.

Anyway other thoughts.
- it might be time to worry about finishing. 3 games in a row now where it’s been an issue. The good news is finishing can suddenly come back to form with little warning, but it would be nice if it perks back up soon.
- this team is sort of opposite from last year. They would destroy bad teams or decent teams that sat back, but struggled badly in the midfield under pressure. This year the midfield seems much more stable, but they are not blowing out bad teams. I strongly prefer the holds up better against pressure; so I am not really complaining.
- the Oregon coach is not smart. You can’t play a 4-3-3 with a bad team. Watch Stanford move through the midfield like it was Swiss cheese as to why it’s a bad idea.
- I don’t like to pick on players but I don’t get the large number of minutes for Grilione. I just don’t see enough positive things on the field so far. I obviously don’t see practice, but it’s not translating during games.
- Craig needs to work a lot with the ball at her feet. That first half sequence was ugly.

RE: Hieronymus - Sakibomb25 - 10-22-2023

(10-22-2023, 06:01 PM)Hieronymus Wrote: Pedestrian 2-0 win against a bad Oregon team today. The team moved the ball well and really only gave up one real chance late when Pagador overcommitted. However, they didn’t generate a lot of great chances out of open play despite the shot totals. Goal 1 was a dreadful Oregon turnover that Aikey finished nicely and the second was off a corner. The team did have 4-5 good chances that they didn’t finish, so again they probably should have doubled their output.

Stanford’s starting line up claimed to be a 3-4-3 and for once I agree. Bhuta right, Aikey left, Harvey back and Doms forward. This flipped into a 4-3-3 I believe in both halves when Williams and later Pagador came on for a forward. I now suspect this 3-4-3 was the OSU line up as well and Bhuta was right mid not right back. Will quick recheck tomorrow night.

I am curious if the 3-4-3 was used for offense against inferior teams, if this is intended as the new normal to get a better midfield player on the field, or if Ratcliffe just wants options. Anybody able to tell what the UW lineup was? Again I didn’t have the game televised where I am.

Anyway other thoughts.
- it might be time to worry about finishing. 3 games in a row now where it’s been an issue. The good news is finishing can suddenly come back to form with little warning, but it would be nice if it perks back up soon.
- this team is sort of opposite from last year. They would destroy bad teams or decent teams that sat back, but struggled badly in the midfield under pressure. This year the midfield seems much more stable, but they are not blowing out bad teams. I strongly prefer the holds up better against pressure; so I am not really complaining.
- the Oregon coach is not smart. You can’t play a 4-3-3 with a bad team. Watch Stanford move through the midfield like it was Swiss cheese as to why it’s a bad idea.
- I don’t like to pick on players but I don’t get the large number of minutes for Grilione. I just don’t see enough positive things on the field so far. I obviously don’t see practice, but it’s not translating during games.
- Craig needs to work a lot with the ball at her feet. That first half sequence was ugly.

Is Ryan Campbell injured? Or is Ratcliffe doing musical chairs again? I really hate the idea of switching goalkeepers. Choose one and stick with it.

I agree with you regarding Grillione, though I am happy that Montoya is back. We will definitely need her if we have any chance of advancing far during the tournament.

My ideal line-up moving forward would be a 4-3-3 - Brandt and Bhuta on the wings, Wesley and Evans in the middle as centerbacks; Harvey, Jung, and Doms in the midfield; and Aikey, Montoya and Kitahata at forward. Or we if we want to do a 4-4-2, move Aikey into the midfield. And of course, have Campbell as the starting keeper. I think this would be our best line-up.

RE: Hieronymus - Hieronymus - 10-23-2023

Sakibomb25 dateline='[url=tel:1698041672' Wrote: 1698041672[/url]']

Hieronymus dateline='[url=tel:1698022919' Wrote: 1698022919[/url]']
Pedestrian 2-0 win against a bad Oregon team today. The team moved the ball well and really only gave up one real chance late when Pagador overcommitted. However, they didn’t generate a lot of great chances out of open play despite the shot totals. Goal 1 was a dreadful Oregon turnover that Aikey finished nicely and the second was off a corner. The team did have 4-5 good chances that they didn’t finish, so again they probably should have doubled their output.

Stanford’s starting line up claimed to be a 3-4-3 and for once I agree. Bhuta right, Aikey left, Harvey back and Doms forward. This flipped into a 4-3-3 I believe in both halves when Williams and later Pagador came on for a forward. I now suspect this 3-4-3 was the OSU line up as well and Bhuta was right mid not right back. Will quick recheck tomorrow night.

I am curious if the 3-4-3 was used for offense against inferior teams, if this is intended as the new normal to get a better midfield player on the field, or if Ratcliffe just wants options. Anybody able to tell what the UW lineup was? Again I didn’t have the game televised where I am.

Anyway other thoughts.
- it might be time to worry about finishing. 3 games in a row now where it’s been an issue. The good news is finishing can suddenly come back to form with little warning, but it would be nice if it perks back up soon.
- this team is sort of opposite from last year. They would destroy bad teams or decent teams that sat back, but struggled badly in the midfield under pressure. This year the midfield seems much more stable, but they are not blowing out bad teams. I strongly prefer the holds up better against pressure; so I am not really complaining.
- the Oregon coach is not smart. You can’t play a 4-3-3 with a bad team. Watch Stanford move through the midfield like it was Swiss cheese as to why it’s a bad idea.
- I don’t like to pick on players but I don’t get the large number of minutes for Grilione. I just don’t see enough positive things on the field so far. I obviously don’t see practice, but it’s not translating during games.
- Craig needs to work a lot with the ball at her feet. That first half sequence was ugly.
Is Ryan Campbell injured? Or is Ratcliffe doing musical chairs again? I really hate the idea of switching goalkeepers. Choose one and stick with it.

I agree with you regarding Grillione, though I am happy that Montoya is back. We will definitely need her if we have any chance of advancing far during the tournament.

My ideal line-up moving forward would be a 4-3-3 - Brandt and Bhuta on the wings, Wesley and Evans in the middle as centerbacks; Harvey, Jung, and Doms in the midfield; and Aikey, Montoya and Kitahata at forward. Or we if we want to do a 4-4-2, move Aikey into the midfield. And of course, have Campbell as the starting keeper. I think this would be our best line-up.

So I assume Craig starting is just tinkering. I think that it’s reasonable to start the backup against the worst team they will play all year. You do poke at the one potential criticism of Ratcliffe though - he maybe asks too much of a College team with his constant tweaking and tinkering. This year I think some of it is necessary for team chemistry. Leontini, Williams and Kostmayer for example have greatly reduced roles and need some playing time.

As for line ups. Despite almost every lineup over the last 2 years claiming to be a 422, I don’t think I have ever actually seen them play a 442. So assuming a 433 for me the conventional answer is:
Forwards: Kitahata, Aikey, Montoya
Mids: Doms, Harvey, Bhuta
Defense: Brandt, Wesley, Evans, Pagador
g: Campbell

I haven’t seen enough from Jung to push Bhuta to Outside back though I get the idea to replace Pagador as she is the weakest starter. If you consider in addition that you have a number of very useful attacking players on the bench, another approach is a 343 becomes at least theoretically really interesting.

Like say:
Forwards: Kitahata, Aikey, Montoya
Mids: Jung/Williams/Leontini, Doms, Harvey, Bhuta
Defense: Brandt, Wesley, Evans
g: Campbell

It will be interesting to see if a primary formation change is seriously being considered or if this is just more tinkering. I expect it’s tinkering and looking for situational options. But I am only say 70% confident of that.

RE: Stanford Women’s Soccer 2023 - BobK - 10-23-2023

I love watching Grilione. Great ball control.