10-04-2019, 05:12 PM
DC--
I felt like Beason's injury was upper body - arm, elbow, wrist, shoulder. Maybe collarbone. He landed awkwardly on his arms coming down.
Thomas is a stud in the net. Has some work to do with commanding his area, though. Like a lot of keepers, he tends to let his defenders defend a bit too much. In other words, if a defender is marking someone, he isn't as aggressive coming for the ball as he might be, as on the first goal last night. A looping ball to the far post falls into a 50-50 ball inside the crease, popped into the crossbar and eventually scrambled into the net.
More generally, I just thought the Huskies wanted it more - they had a lot more bite in their game. WAY too many times I saw a Stanford player waiting for a ball to come to them on offense, rather than attacking it. They went to the ball harder when UW had the ball than when they were receiving it from their own teammates. So the Huskies were able to boss the midfield especially - Stanford couldn't connect balls forward for most of the match. A lot of over the top balls for Bouda to knock down.
I think the Cardinal was over-ranked - they're more a top-15 team than a top-5 team. And if Beason misses any amount of time, they may not be that - they count on the defense being able to cover up balls that get through their high pressure.
On the Pac-12 telecast - the network as a whole seems to have a bunch of jack-of-all-trades, master of none announcers - they bring in color people who are more versed, but get less of the airtime. That seems to be pretty common, but the differential can become painful at points. Maybe one of our industry folks has a comment on the hiring and staffing issues. One thing I noticed is a definite corner-cutting - the women's v-ball at Cal last week being an exemplar - of only the PbP person, no color or second commentator, on a lot of the more recent broadcasts.
My personal bête noire right now is Panchot, and I think it was his mark who got free for the game-winner. On the play, he drifts inside to mark the potential header (who Hughes was defending), leaving the back post open. But more generally, he seems to be reaching Amir Bashti levels of disinterest in defense at points - on one sequence where the Huskies had 5 people in the box pinballing the ball around, Panchot was at about the 25-yard line near the sideline, waiting for the outlet. This from the putative right back. He also had a painful sequence of playing with the ball at his feet, getting double-teamed, then trying to nutmeg the defender which turned into a counter-attack the other way. Which was really the end of the consistent pressure Stanford was putting on after the tying goal, and the last period of real front-foot attacking that the Cardinal had.
VG
P.S. And yes, the women are a joy to watch. Got home too late last night to write it up, but that's a 5-0 win over a top-25 team.
I felt like Beason's injury was upper body - arm, elbow, wrist, shoulder. Maybe collarbone. He landed awkwardly on his arms coming down.
Thomas is a stud in the net. Has some work to do with commanding his area, though. Like a lot of keepers, he tends to let his defenders defend a bit too much. In other words, if a defender is marking someone, he isn't as aggressive coming for the ball as he might be, as on the first goal last night. A looping ball to the far post falls into a 50-50 ball inside the crease, popped into the crossbar and eventually scrambled into the net.
More generally, I just thought the Huskies wanted it more - they had a lot more bite in their game. WAY too many times I saw a Stanford player waiting for a ball to come to them on offense, rather than attacking it. They went to the ball harder when UW had the ball than when they were receiving it from their own teammates. So the Huskies were able to boss the midfield especially - Stanford couldn't connect balls forward for most of the match. A lot of over the top balls for Bouda to knock down.
I think the Cardinal was over-ranked - they're more a top-15 team than a top-5 team. And if Beason misses any amount of time, they may not be that - they count on the defense being able to cover up balls that get through their high pressure.
On the Pac-12 telecast - the network as a whole seems to have a bunch of jack-of-all-trades, master of none announcers - they bring in color people who are more versed, but get less of the airtime. That seems to be pretty common, but the differential can become painful at points. Maybe one of our industry folks has a comment on the hiring and staffing issues. One thing I noticed is a definite corner-cutting - the women's v-ball at Cal last week being an exemplar - of only the PbP person, no color or second commentator, on a lot of the more recent broadcasts.
My personal bête noire right now is Panchot, and I think it was his mark who got free for the game-winner. On the play, he drifts inside to mark the potential header (who Hughes was defending), leaving the back post open. But more generally, he seems to be reaching Amir Bashti levels of disinterest in defense at points - on one sequence where the Huskies had 5 people in the box pinballing the ball around, Panchot was at about the 25-yard line near the sideline, waiting for the outlet. This from the putative right back. He also had a painful sequence of playing with the ball at his feet, getting double-teamed, then trying to nutmeg the defender which turned into a counter-attack the other way. Which was really the end of the consistent pressure Stanford was putting on after the tying goal, and the last period of real front-foot attacking that the Cardinal had.
VG
P.S. And yes, the women are a joy to watch. Got home too late last night to write it up, but that's a 5-0 win over a top-25 team.