11-01-2015, 11:20 PM
https://twitter.com/pac12networks/status...1989133312
Congrats to the women's soccer team, Pac-12 champions.
BC
Congrats to the women's soccer team, Pac-12 champions.
BC
WSoc: Pac-12 champions
https://twitter.com/pac12networks/status...1989133312
Congrats to the women's soccer team, Pac-12 champions.
BC
Congrats to the women's soccer team, Pac-12 champions.
BC
11-02-2015, 05:44 AM
An impressive 10-0 record since beginning league play. We still have C.al on Friday night but locked it up by defeating UCLA. Will be interesting to see how far we go in the NCAAs. Currently ranked 4th. Santa Clara, who gave us our last defeat, is 15th.
Congrats to the team - 4th ranked, 16-2 record and Pac 12 champions.
I haven't seen the team during their end of season run - are they built to go deep in the NCAA tourney? Here's the top 5 nationally - the Virginia's are well represented:
I haven't seen the team during their end of season run - are they built to go deep in the NCAA tourney? Here's the top 5 nationally - the Virginia's are well represented:
| 1 Virginia (27)    13-1-1 767 2 2 West Virginia (1) 15-1-1 732 3 3 Florida State (2) 13-2-2 709 1 4 Stanford (1)    14-2-0 692 4 5 Virginia Tech    14-2-2 627 7 |
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Congrats to the team - 4th ranked, 16-2 record and Pac 12 champions.
I haven't seen the team during their end of season run - are they built to go deep in the NCAA tourney? Here's the top 5 nationally - the Virginia's are well represented:
I haven't seen the team during their end of season run - are they built to go deep in the NCAA tourney? Here's the top 5 nationally - the Virginia's are well represented:
| 1 Virginia (27)    13-1-1 767 2 2 West Virginia (1) 15-1-1 732 3 3 Florida State (2) 13-2-2 709 1 4 Stanford (1)    14-2-0 692 4 5 Virginia Tech    14-2-2 627 7 |
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
11-02-2015, 01:14 PM
(11-02-2015, 12:30 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:Congrats to the team - 4th ranked, 16-2 record and Pac 12 champions.
I haven't seen the team during their end of season run - are they built to go deep in the NCAA tourney? Here's the top 5 nationally - the Virginia's are well represented:
1 Virginia (27) Â Â Â 13-1-1 767 2
2 West Virginia (1) 15-1-1 732 3
3 Florida State (2) 13-2-2 709 1
4 Stanford (1) Â Â Â 14-2-0 692 4
5 Virginia Tech    14-2-2 627 7
Stanford also faring well in RPI - http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/soccer-wome...soccer-rpi
1. Florida St
2. Penn St
3. Rutgers
4. Stanford
Seems like a near-lock to be #1 seed in the West. We can also expect Santa Clara to show up in Stanford's part of the bracket because of "geographic proximity."
Tournament pairings to be announced this Sunday or next Monday.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(11-02-2015, 12:30 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:Congrats to the team - 4th ranked, 16-2 record and Pac 12 champions.
I haven't seen the team during their end of season run - are they built to go deep in the NCAA tourney? Here's the top 5 nationally - the Virginia's are well represented:
1 Virginia (27) Â Â Â 13-1-1 767 2
2 West Virginia (1) 15-1-1 732 3
3 Florida State (2) 13-2-2 709 1
4 Stanford (1) Â Â Â 14-2-0 692 4
5 Virginia Tech    14-2-2 627 7
Stanford also faring well in RPI - http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/soccer-wome...soccer-rpi
1. Florida St
2. Penn St
3. Rutgers
4. Stanford
Seems like a near-lock to be #1 seed in the West. We can also expect Santa Clara to show up in Stanford's part of the bracket because of "geographic proximity."
Tournament pairings to be announced this Sunday or next Monday.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
11-02-2015, 01:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2015, 03:40 PM by Viking_Guy.)
Lefty--
As in the basketball tournaments, it all depends on matchups.
The team as currently constructed has no overwhelming stars - no one player with the combination size, burst and skill of say Jordan Morris, Press or O'Hara. They have a lot of parts that play well together, especially since they began to play Tegan McGrady more, giving them more speed and a natural lefty serving the ball in from the left flank. But there's no consistent finisher - Haley Rosen, the most dangerous scorer, has a heavy and lethal left foot and some size, but a rough injury history has taken its toll on her speed. Andi Sullivan is a great calm, composed presence at holding midfield, but she doesn't have great size.
They'll be vulnerable to their standard nemeses - big, fast, physical teams that are willing and have the depth to press the backline, and counter-attacking teams that can frustrate the "scorer by committee" as Santa Clara did. Penn State was the first type of team - they pressed high, divided up the field by playing two high forwards in vertical line to keep Stanford from switching through the back, and pushed Stanford's midfield around.
The second type relies on Stanford's midfield to get disconnected from the backline as the Cardinal press forward looking for a goal - when Sullivan brings the ball forward and enters the attack, often we only have the two center backs on defense. This year especially, Maddie Bauer has been vulnerable to pressure. Alana Cook has been great as a freshman center back, but the offense relies on Liedle and Amack/McGrady getting forward. If one of them or Sullivan gets dispossessed, there's a lot of room to play into in the Stanford defense.
There's no question Stanford is a better team now than when they lost earlier in the year - McGrady as a strong contributor, Mariah Lee coming off the bench as a change of pace out wide. A stable rotation, if not as much depth as one might want.
But their lack of size means vulnerable on set pieces, and they haven't gotten a lot of offense out of Stanford set pieces - last night at halftime, they had 8 corner kicks, but only 2 shots on goal out of those and the run of play combined.
They're a very good team, and if they win next weekend, they should play at home for the tourney, which will be really helpful. But I think the lack of a Mariah Nogueira-type aerial combat artist and/or a Christen Press-type deadeye finisher makes a championship unlikely. Again, depending on who they match up against. I could see the seeding committee sending K.al or the Broncos to Stanford for a second or third round match, although hopefully it will be more along the line of a CSU Fullerton for a second round matchup. One issue is that there are SEVEN ACC teams in the top 16 of the RPI, so spreading them out will make things complicated.
VG
As in the basketball tournaments, it all depends on matchups.
The team as currently constructed has no overwhelming stars - no one player with the combination size, burst and skill of say Jordan Morris, Press or O'Hara. They have a lot of parts that play well together, especially since they began to play Tegan McGrady more, giving them more speed and a natural lefty serving the ball in from the left flank. But there's no consistent finisher - Haley Rosen, the most dangerous scorer, has a heavy and lethal left foot and some size, but a rough injury history has taken its toll on her speed. Andi Sullivan is a great calm, composed presence at holding midfield, but she doesn't have great size.
They'll be vulnerable to their standard nemeses - big, fast, physical teams that are willing and have the depth to press the backline, and counter-attacking teams that can frustrate the "scorer by committee" as Santa Clara did. Penn State was the first type of team - they pressed high, divided up the field by playing two high forwards in vertical line to keep Stanford from switching through the back, and pushed Stanford's midfield around.
The second type relies on Stanford's midfield to get disconnected from the backline as the Cardinal press forward looking for a goal - when Sullivan brings the ball forward and enters the attack, often we only have the two center backs on defense. This year especially, Maddie Bauer has been vulnerable to pressure. Alana Cook has been great as a freshman center back, but the offense relies on Liedle and Amack/McGrady getting forward. If one of them or Sullivan gets dispossessed, there's a lot of room to play into in the Stanford defense.
There's no question Stanford is a better team now than when they lost earlier in the year - McGrady as a strong contributor, Mariah Lee coming off the bench as a change of pace out wide. A stable rotation, if not as much depth as one might want.
But their lack of size means vulnerable on set pieces, and they haven't gotten a lot of offense out of Stanford set pieces - last night at halftime, they had 8 corner kicks, but only 2 shots on goal out of those and the run of play combined.
They're a very good team, and if they win next weekend, they should play at home for the tourney, which will be really helpful. But I think the lack of a Mariah Nogueira-type aerial combat artist and/or a Christen Press-type deadeye finisher makes a championship unlikely. Again, depending on who they match up against. I could see the seeding committee sending K.al or the Broncos to Stanford for a second or third round match, although hopefully it will be more along the line of a CSU Fullerton for a second round matchup. One issue is that there are SEVEN ACC teams in the top 16 of the RPI, so spreading them out will make things complicated.
VG
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2015, 03:40 PM by Viking_Guy.)
Lefty--
As in the basketball tournaments, it all depends on matchups.
The team as currently constructed has no overwhelming stars - no one player with the combination size, burst and skill of say Jordan Morris, Press or O'Hara. They have a lot of parts that play well together, especially since they began to play Tegan McGrady more, giving them more speed and a natural lefty serving the ball in from the left flank. But there's no consistent finisher - Haley Rosen, the most dangerous scorer, has a heavy and lethal left foot and some size, but a rough injury history has taken its toll on her speed. Andi Sullivan is a great calm, composed presence at holding midfield, but she doesn't have great size.
They'll be vulnerable to their standard nemeses - big, fast, physical teams that are willing and have the depth to press the backline, and counter-attacking teams that can frustrate the "scorer by committee" as Santa Clara did. Penn State was the first type of team - they pressed high, divided up the field by playing two high forwards in vertical line to keep Stanford from switching through the back, and pushed Stanford's midfield around.
The second type relies on Stanford's midfield to get disconnected from the backline as the Cardinal press forward looking for a goal - when Sullivan brings the ball forward and enters the attack, often we only have the two center backs on defense. This year especially, Maddie Bauer has been vulnerable to pressure. Alana Cook has been great as a freshman center back, but the offense relies on Liedle and Amack/McGrady getting forward. If one of them or Sullivan gets dispossessed, there's a lot of room to play into in the Stanford defense.
There's no question Stanford is a better team now than when they lost earlier in the year - McGrady as a strong contributor, Mariah Lee coming off the bench as a change of pace out wide. A stable rotation, if not as much depth as one might want.
But their lack of size means vulnerable on set pieces, and they haven't gotten a lot of offense out of Stanford set pieces - last night at halftime, they had 8 corner kicks, but only 2 shots on goal out of those and the run of play combined.
They're a very good team, and if they win next weekend, they should play at home for the tourney, which will be really helpful. But I think the lack of a Mariah Nogueira-type aerial combat artist and/or a Christen Press-type deadeye finisher makes a championship unlikely. Again, depending on who they match up against. I could see the seeding committee sending K.al or the Broncos to Stanford for a second or third round match, although hopefully it will be more along the line of a CSU Fullerton for a second round matchup. One issue is that there are SEVEN ACC teams in the top 16 of the RPI, so spreading them out will make things complicated.
VG
As in the basketball tournaments, it all depends on matchups.
The team as currently constructed has no overwhelming stars - no one player with the combination size, burst and skill of say Jordan Morris, Press or O'Hara. They have a lot of parts that play well together, especially since they began to play Tegan McGrady more, giving them more speed and a natural lefty serving the ball in from the left flank. But there's no consistent finisher - Haley Rosen, the most dangerous scorer, has a heavy and lethal left foot and some size, but a rough injury history has taken its toll on her speed. Andi Sullivan is a great calm, composed presence at holding midfield, but she doesn't have great size.
They'll be vulnerable to their standard nemeses - big, fast, physical teams that are willing and have the depth to press the backline, and counter-attacking teams that can frustrate the "scorer by committee" as Santa Clara did. Penn State was the first type of team - they pressed high, divided up the field by playing two high forwards in vertical line to keep Stanford from switching through the back, and pushed Stanford's midfield around.
The second type relies on Stanford's midfield to get disconnected from the backline as the Cardinal press forward looking for a goal - when Sullivan brings the ball forward and enters the attack, often we only have the two center backs on defense. This year especially, Maddie Bauer has been vulnerable to pressure. Alana Cook has been great as a freshman center back, but the offense relies on Liedle and Amack/McGrady getting forward. If one of them or Sullivan gets dispossessed, there's a lot of room to play into in the Stanford defense.
There's no question Stanford is a better team now than when they lost earlier in the year - McGrady as a strong contributor, Mariah Lee coming off the bench as a change of pace out wide. A stable rotation, if not as much depth as one might want.
But their lack of size means vulnerable on set pieces, and they haven't gotten a lot of offense out of Stanford set pieces - last night at halftime, they had 8 corner kicks, but only 2 shots on goal out of those and the run of play combined.
They're a very good team, and if they win next weekend, they should play at home for the tourney, which will be really helpful. But I think the lack of a Mariah Nogueira-type aerial combat artist and/or a Christen Press-type deadeye finisher makes a championship unlikely. Again, depending on who they match up against. I could see the seeding committee sending K.al or the Broncos to Stanford for a second or third round match, although hopefully it will be more along the line of a CSU Fullerton for a second round matchup. One issue is that there are SEVEN ACC teams in the top 16 of the RPI, so spreading them out will make things complicated.
VG
11-02-2015, 03:54 PM
Thanks VG. I watched some earlier games and wouldn't have predicted the teams finish. Sounds like the players are showing the type of cohesion that can lead a Stanford team to beat teams with more star-power but less synergy. I'll drop by one of the upcoming Cagan stadium games.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Thanks VG. I watched some earlier games and wouldn't have predicted the teams finish. Sounds like the players are showing the type of cohesion that can lead a Stanford team to beat teams with more star-power but less synergy. I'll drop by one of the upcoming Cagan stadium games.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
11-02-2015, 04:52 PM
Lefty--
It's almost the evolution of a new formation - we essentially play a 4-3-3 defensively, and a 2-3-4-1 when in possession.
Up top, Kyra Carusa - tough, some size, and good back to goal settler. Scores mostly as a poacher on loose balls in the box. Plays almost always centrally. Not too fast or big, but tenacious.
Four in the attack from left to right:
McGrady - as mentioned, burner natural lefty freshman whose service is good enough that she hits the inswinger from the right on Stanford corner kicks.
DiBiasi and Rosen - although they interchange a lot, Rosen seems to prefer right to left movement to put the ball on her educated left foot in the center. DiBiasi roves, often covering for Rosen, quick but not fast, good reactions and control. Rosen is the only lethal long shooter in this 4, but her speed can be an issue. Scored a great goal at WSU by shrugging off multiple defender on a powerful run up the middle, but at "unstoppable battleship" rather than "split defenders with lightning speed" mode.
Xiao - a bit of a mystery. Obviously talented, slight of build, quick and with good control, but her first touch sometimes deserts her, and has a tendency to let the ball get away with too long of a dribble. But good server from the right side.
Three across holding the front of the defense:
Amack - aggressive and the best attacking header option starting, but can be dispossessed and caught out of position. Good size/speed combination, though. Sometimes a bit loose with her passes back and into the middle of the pitch, hitting them softly and creating "hospital balls."
Sullivan - the heart and linchpin of the team. Calm and collected on the ball, and a great distributor. Good speed and touch, but can get bumped off the ball. When Stanford played WSU, the Cougars literally had one player marking her at ALL TIMES, chasing her around the pitch.
Liedle - a conundrum. Great experienced right back, but has a tendency to get caught upfield and expose the center backs behind her. With Amack, the two most physical starters, and another good server from the right.
And then the two center backs:
Cook - freshman with good size and speed, and has bought into the center back distributor of the ball role. Best recovery defender (along with Sullivan), and solid in the air.
Bauer - experienced center back, good size, good defensive header, but not very quick, and can be attacked off the dribble. Sometimes holds the ball a bit too long trying to wait for a safe "possession" pass to open up.
Campbell in goal: good shot stopper and excellent with her feet, with good anticipation, she often covers the balls over the top by counterattacking teams trying to get behind the D. But only 5'9", so not as great in the air plucking crosses as say Nicole Barnhart.
Subs:
Mariah Lee - burner, compact and strong, stays on the ball, but almost completely right-footed. Rarely cuts the ball back in from the right side where she roams as a sub for Xiao.
Ashley Walker-Hartshorn - still a tall, strong player, but seems to be a little less quick than she was last year. Subs in for Carusa, mostly.
Megan Turner - hard worker in the midfield, mostly in for DiBiasi.
VG
It's almost the evolution of a new formation - we essentially play a 4-3-3 defensively, and a 2-3-4-1 when in possession.
Up top, Kyra Carusa - tough, some size, and good back to goal settler. Scores mostly as a poacher on loose balls in the box. Plays almost always centrally. Not too fast or big, but tenacious.
Four in the attack from left to right:
McGrady - as mentioned, burner natural lefty freshman whose service is good enough that she hits the inswinger from the right on Stanford corner kicks.
DiBiasi and Rosen - although they interchange a lot, Rosen seems to prefer right to left movement to put the ball on her educated left foot in the center. DiBiasi roves, often covering for Rosen, quick but not fast, good reactions and control. Rosen is the only lethal long shooter in this 4, but her speed can be an issue. Scored a great goal at WSU by shrugging off multiple defender on a powerful run up the middle, but at "unstoppable battleship" rather than "split defenders with lightning speed" mode.
Xiao - a bit of a mystery. Obviously talented, slight of build, quick and with good control, but her first touch sometimes deserts her, and has a tendency to let the ball get away with too long of a dribble. But good server from the right side.
Three across holding the front of the defense:
Amack - aggressive and the best attacking header option starting, but can be dispossessed and caught out of position. Good size/speed combination, though. Sometimes a bit loose with her passes back and into the middle of the pitch, hitting them softly and creating "hospital balls."
Sullivan - the heart and linchpin of the team. Calm and collected on the ball, and a great distributor. Good speed and touch, but can get bumped off the ball. When Stanford played WSU, the Cougars literally had one player marking her at ALL TIMES, chasing her around the pitch.
Liedle - a conundrum. Great experienced right back, but has a tendency to get caught upfield and expose the center backs behind her. With Amack, the two most physical starters, and another good server from the right.
And then the two center backs:
Cook - freshman with good size and speed, and has bought into the center back distributor of the ball role. Best recovery defender (along with Sullivan), and solid in the air.
Bauer - experienced center back, good size, good defensive header, but not very quick, and can be attacked off the dribble. Sometimes holds the ball a bit too long trying to wait for a safe "possession" pass to open up.
Campbell in goal: good shot stopper and excellent with her feet, with good anticipation, she often covers the balls over the top by counterattacking teams trying to get behind the D. But only 5'9", so not as great in the air plucking crosses as say Nicole Barnhart.
Subs:
Mariah Lee - burner, compact and strong, stays on the ball, but almost completely right-footed. Rarely cuts the ball back in from the right side where she roams as a sub for Xiao.
Ashley Walker-Hartshorn - still a tall, strong player, but seems to be a little less quick than she was last year. Subs in for Carusa, mostly.
Megan Turner - hard worker in the midfield, mostly in for DiBiasi.
VG
Lefty--
It's almost the evolution of a new formation - we essentially play a 4-3-3 defensively, and a 2-3-4-1 when in possession.
Up top, Kyra Carusa - tough, some size, and good back to goal settler. Scores mostly as a poacher on loose balls in the box. Plays almost always centrally. Not too fast or big, but tenacious.
Four in the attack from left to right:
McGrady - as mentioned, burner natural lefty freshman whose service is good enough that she hits the inswinger from the right on Stanford corner kicks.
DiBiasi and Rosen - although they interchange a lot, Rosen seems to prefer right to left movement to put the ball on her educated left foot in the center. DiBiasi roves, often covering for Rosen, quick but not fast, good reactions and control. Rosen is the only lethal long shooter in this 4, but her speed can be an issue. Scored a great goal at WSU by shrugging off multiple defender on a powerful run up the middle, but at "unstoppable battleship" rather than "split defenders with lightning speed" mode.
Xiao - a bit of a mystery. Obviously talented, slight of build, quick and with good control, but her first touch sometimes deserts her, and has a tendency to let the ball get away with too long of a dribble. But good server from the right side.
Three across holding the front of the defense:
Amack - aggressive and the best attacking header option starting, but can be dispossessed and caught out of position. Good size/speed combination, though. Sometimes a bit loose with her passes back and into the middle of the pitch, hitting them softly and creating "hospital balls."
Sullivan - the heart and linchpin of the team. Calm and collected on the ball, and a great distributor. Good speed and touch, but can get bumped off the ball. When Stanford played WSU, the Cougars literally had one player marking her at ALL TIMES, chasing her around the pitch.
Liedle - a conundrum. Great experienced right back, but has a tendency to get caught upfield and expose the center backs behind her. With Amack, the two most physical starters, and another good server from the right.
And then the two center backs:
Cook - freshman with good size and speed, and has bought into the center back distributor of the ball role. Best recovery defender (along with Sullivan), and solid in the air.
Bauer - experienced center back, good size, good defensive header, but not very quick, and can be attacked off the dribble. Sometimes holds the ball a bit too long trying to wait for a safe "possession" pass to open up.
Campbell in goal: good shot stopper and excellent with her feet, with good anticipation, she often covers the balls over the top by counterattacking teams trying to get behind the D. But only 5'9", so not as great in the air plucking crosses as say Nicole Barnhart.
Subs:
Mariah Lee - burner, compact and strong, stays on the ball, but almost completely right-footed. Rarely cuts the ball back in from the right side where she roams as a sub for Xiao.
Ashley Walker-Hartshorn - still a tall, strong player, but seems to be a little less quick than she was last year. Subs in for Carusa, mostly.
Megan Turner - hard worker in the midfield, mostly in for DiBiasi.
VG
It's almost the evolution of a new formation - we essentially play a 4-3-3 defensively, and a 2-3-4-1 when in possession.
Up top, Kyra Carusa - tough, some size, and good back to goal settler. Scores mostly as a poacher on loose balls in the box. Plays almost always centrally. Not too fast or big, but tenacious.
Four in the attack from left to right:
McGrady - as mentioned, burner natural lefty freshman whose service is good enough that she hits the inswinger from the right on Stanford corner kicks.
DiBiasi and Rosen - although they interchange a lot, Rosen seems to prefer right to left movement to put the ball on her educated left foot in the center. DiBiasi roves, often covering for Rosen, quick but not fast, good reactions and control. Rosen is the only lethal long shooter in this 4, but her speed can be an issue. Scored a great goal at WSU by shrugging off multiple defender on a powerful run up the middle, but at "unstoppable battleship" rather than "split defenders with lightning speed" mode.
Xiao - a bit of a mystery. Obviously talented, slight of build, quick and with good control, but her first touch sometimes deserts her, and has a tendency to let the ball get away with too long of a dribble. But good server from the right side.
Three across holding the front of the defense:
Amack - aggressive and the best attacking header option starting, but can be dispossessed and caught out of position. Good size/speed combination, though. Sometimes a bit loose with her passes back and into the middle of the pitch, hitting them softly and creating "hospital balls."
Sullivan - the heart and linchpin of the team. Calm and collected on the ball, and a great distributor. Good speed and touch, but can get bumped off the ball. When Stanford played WSU, the Cougars literally had one player marking her at ALL TIMES, chasing her around the pitch.
Liedle - a conundrum. Great experienced right back, but has a tendency to get caught upfield and expose the center backs behind her. With Amack, the two most physical starters, and another good server from the right.
And then the two center backs:
Cook - freshman with good size and speed, and has bought into the center back distributor of the ball role. Best recovery defender (along with Sullivan), and solid in the air.
Bauer - experienced center back, good size, good defensive header, but not very quick, and can be attacked off the dribble. Sometimes holds the ball a bit too long trying to wait for a safe "possession" pass to open up.
Campbell in goal: good shot stopper and excellent with her feet, with good anticipation, she often covers the balls over the top by counterattacking teams trying to get behind the D. But only 5'9", so not as great in the air plucking crosses as say Nicole Barnhart.
Subs:
Mariah Lee - burner, compact and strong, stays on the ball, but almost completely right-footed. Rarely cuts the ball back in from the right side where she roams as a sub for Xiao.
Ashley Walker-Hartshorn - still a tall, strong player, but seems to be a little less quick than she was last year. Subs in for Carusa, mostly.
Megan Turner - hard worker in the midfield, mostly in for DiBiasi.
VG
11-02-2015, 05:05 PM
agree with coach VG. We should be able to beat everyone we meet before the quarters, subject to the vagaries of soccer, including penalty kick shootouts. Quarterfinal match depends on the matchup. I wouldn't want to see Penn State again before the College Cup, but I wouldn't mind Santa Clara again. The team has improved steadily through the year as the new players have gained experience and the team has gained cohesion. A big plus is Andi Sullivan, who IS a star, playing the Teresa Noyola role of on-field coach and director, though I think she hasn't had the ball on her feet as much as Teresa did. Another hu-ge plus is Campbell in goal who regularly makes incredible saves. The big issue is scoring. But although we don't have a proven, consistent offensive star, the players are very talented and many have displayed flashes of the kind of brilliance that is needed to win close games against high-quality opponents. I think our fate in the later rounds depends on whether one or two of them can muster that moment of brilliance in the tough games. If not, there is a good chance we won't score enough to win in regulation.
agree with coach VG. We should be able to beat everyone we meet before the quarters, subject to the vagaries of soccer, including penalty kick shootouts. Quarterfinal match depends on the matchup. I wouldn't want to see Penn State again before the College Cup, but I wouldn't mind Santa Clara again. The team has improved steadily through the year as the new players have gained experience and the team has gained cohesion. A big plus is Andi Sullivan, who IS a star, playing the Teresa Noyola role of on-field coach and director, though I think she hasn't had the ball on her feet as much as Teresa did. Another hu-ge plus is Campbell in goal who regularly makes incredible saves. The big issue is scoring. But although we don't have a proven, consistent offensive star, the players are very talented and many have displayed flashes of the kind of brilliance that is needed to win close games against high-quality opponents. I think our fate in the later rounds depends on whether one or two of them can muster that moment of brilliance in the tough games. If not, there is a good chance we won't score enough to win in regulation.
11-02-2015, 08:34 PM
Great analysis of the women's soccer team, VG.
Have you been following the men's team too? Curious to see if you are, which team you think have the better chance of going further in the postseason and possibly bringing home a national title?
Have you been following the men's team too? Curious to see if you are, which team you think have the better chance of going further in the postseason and possibly bringing home a national title?
11-02-2015, 08:54 PM
(11-02-2015, 08:34 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:Have you been following the men's team too? Curious to see if you are, which team you think have the better chance of going further in the postseason and possibly bringing home a national title?
I haven't been following the women's team as closely, but I have been following the men's team. They're very good, loaded, even. They outclassed most Pac-12 teams even without Morris.
(11-02-2015, 08:34 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:Have you been following the men's team too? Curious to see if you are, which team you think have the better chance of going further in the postseason and possibly bringing home a national title?
I haven't been following the women's team as closely, but I have been following the men's team. They're very good, loaded, even. They outclassed most Pac-12 teams even without Morris.
11-03-2015, 12:07 AM
I think we should have a separate thread for the men, and if I don't see one tomorrow I'll start one, but tonight they were hard done by. The referee gave UW an EXTREMELY soft PK to tie the score at 1 late in the first half - no contact on the lower body, a partial forearm to the side, and the attacker goes down falling over the ball.Â
In the second half, didn't even card a Husky for a chop across the legs with no chance of getting the ball that stopped a Stanford breakout and counterattack, then gave the same player who bought the PK another soft foul that led to the winning goal when Brian Nana-Sinkam looked at the official in disbelief. Unfortunately, in doing so he left Hilliard-Arce alone on an island and a quick restart led to a forward running in at Hilliard-Arce alone. It didn't end well.
For all I loved Jamie Clark's play when he was a gritty player for Stanford, his UW teams have some of the worst qualities in football - five parts thug and two parts flopper.
The one major criticism of Stanford tonight is that they couldn't find matching intensity. Of course, when they did, they were often whistled for fouls.
The other criticism, and it also applies to the women's team, is that they seem content to launch balls into the box from 22-25 yards out, rather than taking on defenders 1v1 and forcing contact. For as talented as they both are, they don't draw a lot of PKs, and most of the ones I've seen this year have been on hand balls.
Tonight for example. Late in the game, Sam Werner gets free on the left hand side, about six yards off the endline. He touches the ball into the box, and has a good six yards of open space in front of him to where one defender is guarding the near post about 3 yards off it. Instead of taking the space and attacking the defender, he tries to drive a ball through the middle of five defenders across the face of goal. Force the issue.
VG
In the second half, didn't even card a Husky for a chop across the legs with no chance of getting the ball that stopped a Stanford breakout and counterattack, then gave the same player who bought the PK another soft foul that led to the winning goal when Brian Nana-Sinkam looked at the official in disbelief. Unfortunately, in doing so he left Hilliard-Arce alone on an island and a quick restart led to a forward running in at Hilliard-Arce alone. It didn't end well.
For all I loved Jamie Clark's play when he was a gritty player for Stanford, his UW teams have some of the worst qualities in football - five parts thug and two parts flopper.
The one major criticism of Stanford tonight is that they couldn't find matching intensity. Of course, when they did, they were often whistled for fouls.
The other criticism, and it also applies to the women's team, is that they seem content to launch balls into the box from 22-25 yards out, rather than taking on defenders 1v1 and forcing contact. For as talented as they both are, they don't draw a lot of PKs, and most of the ones I've seen this year have been on hand balls.
Tonight for example. Late in the game, Sam Werner gets free on the left hand side, about six yards off the endline. He touches the ball into the box, and has a good six yards of open space in front of him to where one defender is guarding the near post about 3 yards off it. Instead of taking the space and attacking the defender, he tries to drive a ball through the middle of five defenders across the face of goal. Force the issue.
VG
I think we should have a separate thread for the men, and if I don't see one tomorrow I'll start one, but tonight they were hard done by. The referee gave UW an EXTREMELY soft PK to tie the score at 1 late in the first half - no contact on the lower body, a partial forearm to the side, and the attacker goes down falling over the ball.Â
In the second half, didn't even card a Husky for a chop across the legs with no chance of getting the ball that stopped a Stanford breakout and counterattack, then gave the same player who bought the PK another soft foul that led to the winning goal when Brian Nana-Sinkam looked at the official in disbelief. Unfortunately, in doing so he left Hilliard-Arce alone on an island and a quick restart led to a forward running in at Hilliard-Arce alone. It didn't end well.
For all I loved Jamie Clark's play when he was a gritty player for Stanford, his UW teams have some of the worst qualities in football - five parts thug and two parts flopper.
The one major criticism of Stanford tonight is that they couldn't find matching intensity. Of course, when they did, they were often whistled for fouls.
The other criticism, and it also applies to the women's team, is that they seem content to launch balls into the box from 22-25 yards out, rather than taking on defenders 1v1 and forcing contact. For as talented as they both are, they don't draw a lot of PKs, and most of the ones I've seen this year have been on hand balls.
Tonight for example. Late in the game, Sam Werner gets free on the left hand side, about six yards off the endline. He touches the ball into the box, and has a good six yards of open space in front of him to where one defender is guarding the near post about 3 yards off it. Instead of taking the space and attacking the defender, he tries to drive a ball through the middle of five defenders across the face of goal. Force the issue.
VG
In the second half, didn't even card a Husky for a chop across the legs with no chance of getting the ball that stopped a Stanford breakout and counterattack, then gave the same player who bought the PK another soft foul that led to the winning goal when Brian Nana-Sinkam looked at the official in disbelief. Unfortunately, in doing so he left Hilliard-Arce alone on an island and a quick restart led to a forward running in at Hilliard-Arce alone. It didn't end well.
For all I loved Jamie Clark's play when he was a gritty player for Stanford, his UW teams have some of the worst qualities in football - five parts thug and two parts flopper.
The one major criticism of Stanford tonight is that they couldn't find matching intensity. Of course, when they did, they were often whistled for fouls.
The other criticism, and it also applies to the women's team, is that they seem content to launch balls into the box from 22-25 yards out, rather than taking on defenders 1v1 and forcing contact. For as talented as they both are, they don't draw a lot of PKs, and most of the ones I've seen this year have been on hand balls.
Tonight for example. Late in the game, Sam Werner gets free on the left hand side, about six yards off the endline. He touches the ball into the box, and has a good six yards of open space in front of him to where one defender is guarding the near post about 3 yards off it. Instead of taking the space and attacking the defender, he tries to drive a ball through the middle of five defenders across the face of goal. Force the issue.
VG
11-03-2015, 12:47 AM
I didn't grow up playing or even watching soccer and am recently enjoying the Stanford teams, so I'm not familiar with the subtleties, but some things seem odd to me.
The Stanford women seem to be significantly better than their opponents. 16-2 in games, 345-109 in shots, 34-10 in goals, 27-6 in assists, 3-13 yellow cards, 142-33 corner kicks.
So why is it that their shot percentage (goals/shots) is basically the same as their opponent? .099 vs .092
and their shots-on-goal pct (SOG/shots) is virtually identical? .368 vs .367
I would expect a significantly better team to have at least a somewhat better percentage of their shots going into the goal, perhaps due to better shooting technique or better position at the time of the shot. To me these numbers suggest Stanford's sole advantage is getting the ball close enough to the goal to shoot more often, but not really getting better shots (just more often getting the same quality of chances). (That advantage is of course a mixture of Stanford offense getting the ball into position, plus Stanford defense keeping the opponent away from such a position, plus Stanford offense keeping the ball out of the opponent's possession.)
Another statistic that jumps out at me is that Stanford has 142 (7.9/gm) corner kicks to their opponents' 33 (1.8/gm) But goals scored off corner kicks seem fewer than I expect. Reviewing the games play-by-play, I found just 3 Stanford goals immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute. Their opponents scored one immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute.
The Stanford women seem to be significantly better than their opponents. 16-2 in games, 345-109 in shots, 34-10 in goals, 27-6 in assists, 3-13 yellow cards, 142-33 corner kicks.
So why is it that their shot percentage (goals/shots) is basically the same as their opponent? .099 vs .092
and their shots-on-goal pct (SOG/shots) is virtually identical? .368 vs .367
I would expect a significantly better team to have at least a somewhat better percentage of their shots going into the goal, perhaps due to better shooting technique or better position at the time of the shot. To me these numbers suggest Stanford's sole advantage is getting the ball close enough to the goal to shoot more often, but not really getting better shots (just more often getting the same quality of chances). (That advantage is of course a mixture of Stanford offense getting the ball into position, plus Stanford defense keeping the opponent away from such a position, plus Stanford offense keeping the ball out of the opponent's possession.)
Another statistic that jumps out at me is that Stanford has 142 (7.9/gm) corner kicks to their opponents' 33 (1.8/gm) But goals scored off corner kicks seem fewer than I expect. Reviewing the games play-by-play, I found just 3 Stanford goals immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute. Their opponents scored one immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute.
I didn't grow up playing or even watching soccer and am recently enjoying the Stanford teams, so I'm not familiar with the subtleties, but some things seem odd to me.
The Stanford women seem to be significantly better than their opponents. 16-2 in games, 345-109 in shots, 34-10 in goals, 27-6 in assists, 3-13 yellow cards, 142-33 corner kicks.
So why is it that their shot percentage (goals/shots) is basically the same as their opponent? .099 vs .092
and their shots-on-goal pct (SOG/shots) is virtually identical? .368 vs .367
I would expect a significantly better team to have at least a somewhat better percentage of their shots going into the goal, perhaps due to better shooting technique or better position at the time of the shot. To me these numbers suggest Stanford's sole advantage is getting the ball close enough to the goal to shoot more often, but not really getting better shots (just more often getting the same quality of chances). (That advantage is of course a mixture of Stanford offense getting the ball into position, plus Stanford defense keeping the opponent away from such a position, plus Stanford offense keeping the ball out of the opponent's possession.)
Another statistic that jumps out at me is that Stanford has 142 (7.9/gm) corner kicks to their opponents' 33 (1.8/gm) But goals scored off corner kicks seem fewer than I expect. Reviewing the games play-by-play, I found just 3 Stanford goals immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute. Their opponents scored one immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute.
The Stanford women seem to be significantly better than their opponents. 16-2 in games, 345-109 in shots, 34-10 in goals, 27-6 in assists, 3-13 yellow cards, 142-33 corner kicks.
So why is it that their shot percentage (goals/shots) is basically the same as their opponent? .099 vs .092
and their shots-on-goal pct (SOG/shots) is virtually identical? .368 vs .367
I would expect a significantly better team to have at least a somewhat better percentage of their shots going into the goal, perhaps due to better shooting technique or better position at the time of the shot. To me these numbers suggest Stanford's sole advantage is getting the ball close enough to the goal to shoot more often, but not really getting better shots (just more often getting the same quality of chances). (That advantage is of course a mixture of Stanford offense getting the ball into position, plus Stanford defense keeping the opponent away from such a position, plus Stanford offense keeping the ball out of the opponent's possession.)
Another statistic that jumps out at me is that Stanford has 142 (7.9/gm) corner kicks to their opponents' 33 (1.8/gm) But goals scored off corner kicks seem fewer than I expect. Reviewing the games play-by-play, I found just 3 Stanford goals immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute. Their opponents scored one immediately on a corner kick plus two more within a minute.
11-03-2015, 06:23 AM
MT, that's a great question. It's something that's been puzzled over by the stat people in soccer, and while they don't have a definitive answer, they do believe something counterintuitive:
Finishing -- defined here as being more likely to score a goal off of a given shot -- doesn't seem to exist at the team level. In fact, stat based people often predict certain teams to progress/regress based on weird outliers in finishing. Instead, they judge teams on whether or not they get more shots, and in particular quality shots, than their opponents.
It's not a completely satisfying answer though; they acknowledge that certain players (Messi) in fact exceed the predicted levels of finishing a given shot. So if an individual can't do it, why not a team? I haven't seen a great answer for this, but that's the thinking right now.
Finishing -- defined here as being more likely to score a goal off of a given shot -- doesn't seem to exist at the team level. In fact, stat based people often predict certain teams to progress/regress based on weird outliers in finishing. Instead, they judge teams on whether or not they get more shots, and in particular quality shots, than their opponents.
It's not a completely satisfying answer though; they acknowledge that certain players (Messi) in fact exceed the predicted levels of finishing a given shot. So if an individual can't do it, why not a team? I haven't seen a great answer for this, but that's the thinking right now.
MT, that's a great question. It's something that's been puzzled over by the stat people in soccer, and while they don't have a definitive answer, they do believe something counterintuitive:
Finishing -- defined here as being more likely to score a goal off of a given shot -- doesn't seem to exist at the team level. In fact, stat based people often predict certain teams to progress/regress based on weird outliers in finishing. Instead, they judge teams on whether or not they get more shots, and in particular quality shots, than their opponents.
It's not a completely satisfying answer though; they acknowledge that certain players (Messi) in fact exceed the predicted levels of finishing a given shot. So if an individual can't do it, why not a team? I haven't seen a great answer for this, but that's the thinking right now.
Finishing -- defined here as being more likely to score a goal off of a given shot -- doesn't seem to exist at the team level. In fact, stat based people often predict certain teams to progress/regress based on weird outliers in finishing. Instead, they judge teams on whether or not they get more shots, and in particular quality shots, than their opponents.
It's not a completely satisfying answer though; they acknowledge that certain players (Messi) in fact exceed the predicted levels of finishing a given shot. So if an individual can't do it, why not a team? I haven't seen a great answer for this, but that's the thinking right now.
11-03-2015, 01:24 PM
Also, the expected scoring value of a corner kick is actually very low, and in some cases, negative (because they afford the opposition a chance to counterattack). Corners are correlated with scoring, of course, but mostly because corners are a result of scoring opportunities, not vice versa.
https://kindle.amazon.com/work/the-numbe...B00AHO28NG
An analysis in the English Premiere league found that corners resulted in a goal only 3% of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc...in-soccer/
The reason is found here:
http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com...cted-goals
BC
https://kindle.amazon.com/work/the-numbe...B00AHO28NG
An analysis in the English Premiere league found that corners resulted in a goal only 3% of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc...in-soccer/
The reason is found here:
http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com...cted-goals
Quote:Corner kicks are the most defended actions in football. Even the most aggressive teams station seven or eight players deep in their own box. As such there is a notable negative effect on xG from corner kicks. Set plays are well-defended, but not as easy to stop as a corner kick.
BC
Also, the expected scoring value of a corner kick is actually very low, and in some cases, negative (because they afford the opposition a chance to counterattack). Corners are correlated with scoring, of course, but mostly because corners are a result of scoring opportunities, not vice versa.
https://kindle.amazon.com/work/the-numbe...B00AHO28NG
An analysis in the English Premiere league found that corners resulted in a goal only 3% of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc...in-soccer/
The reason is found here:
http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com...cted-goals
BC
https://kindle.amazon.com/work/the-numbe...B00AHO28NG
An analysis in the English Premiere league found that corners resulted in a goal only 3% of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc...in-soccer/
The reason is found here:
http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com...cted-goals
Quote:Corner kicks are the most defended actions in football. Even the most aggressive teams station seven or eight players deep in their own box. As such there is a notable negative effect on xG from corner kicks. Set plays are well-defended, but not as easy to stop as a corner kick.
BC
11-03-2015, 02:09 PM
We also sweep the Pac-12 players of the week honors:
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/661632727721058304
I believe the honors are Player of the Week for DiBiassi, Freshman of the week for Cook, and Goalie of the week for Campbell (the link doesn't work for me).
BC
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/661632727721058304
I believe the honors are Player of the Week for DiBiassi, Freshman of the week for Cook, and Goalie of the week for Campbell (the link doesn't work for me).
BC
We also sweep the Pac-12 players of the week honors:
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/661632727721058304
I believe the honors are Player of the Week for DiBiassi, Freshman of the week for Cook, and Goalie of the week for Campbell (the link doesn't work for me).
BC
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/661632727721058304
I believe the honors are Player of the Week for DiBiassi, Freshman of the week for Cook, and Goalie of the week for Campbell (the link doesn't work for me).
BC
11-03-2015, 04:13 PM
(11-03-2015, 06:23 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Finishing -- defined here as being more likely to score a goal off of a given shot -- doesn't seem to exist at the team level. In fact, stat based people often predict certain teams to progress/regress based on weird outliers in finishing. Instead, they judge teams on whether or not they get more shots, and in particular quality shots, than their opponents.
Here's an interesting article:
http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com...cted-goals
Quote:Second, player finishing skill is the primary driver of the "super team effect" in expected goals. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich all outperform typical versions of expected goals by large margins. But if I include a player finishing adjustment, most of that outperformance disappears. I have shown that players who finish chances brilliantly for these superclubs also finish their chances at high rates on other teams. So these top sides tend to finish their chances for the simple reason that they have collected players who nearly all, individually, shoot well. This is, I think, good prima facie evidence that the shooting skill adjustment captures something real.
So it does look like conversion is, in fact, a thing at a team level, though my guess is that there is a lot of noise involved so it is hard to detect an effect statistically in all but the most extreme teams.
BC
(11-03-2015, 06:23 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Finishing -- defined here as being more likely to score a goal off of a given shot -- doesn't seem to exist at the team level. In fact, stat based people often predict certain teams to progress/regress based on weird outliers in finishing. Instead, they judge teams on whether or not they get more shots, and in particular quality shots, than their opponents.
Here's an interesting article:
http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com...cted-goals
Quote:Second, player finishing skill is the primary driver of the "super team effect" in expected goals. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich all outperform typical versions of expected goals by large margins. But if I include a player finishing adjustment, most of that outperformance disappears. I have shown that players who finish chances brilliantly for these superclubs also finish their chances at high rates on other teams. So these top sides tend to finish their chances for the simple reason that they have collected players who nearly all, individually, shoot well. This is, I think, good prima facie evidence that the shooting skill adjustment captures something real.
So it does look like conversion is, in fact, a thing at a team level, though my guess is that there is a lot of noise involved so it is hard to detect an effect statistically in all but the most extreme teams.
BC
11-03-2015, 06:13 PM
(11-03-2015, 02:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I believe the honors are Player of the Week for DiBiassi, Freshman of the week for Cook, and Goalie of the week for Campbell (the link doesn't work for me).
Offensive Player OTW, Defensive Player OTW, GK OTW. No weekly award for freshmen, probably the n is too small.
(11-03-2015, 02:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I believe the honors are Player of the Week for DiBiassi, Freshman of the week for Cook, and Goalie of the week for Campbell (the link doesn't work for me).
Offensive Player OTW, Defensive Player OTW, GK OTW. No weekly award for freshmen, probably the n is too small.
11-04-2015, 01:18 PM
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »