[Viking_Guy]

Now that I'm in less danger of apoplexy...

First things first.  Gutty, gritty, and all those other words about the effort from the side tonight.

Second, the officiating.  Not unbalanced, but the way it was balanced was definitely in favor of North Carolina - a LOT of physical play let go.  Stanford is NOT good at that part of the game - they don't have an enforcer "hard" type player on the side, which is at points a weakness.  

Third, and most concerning throughout the game - our lack of an aerial game really haunted us all game long.  Corner after corner with no solid attempts to show for it.  No one getting up to put some really good serves into the box on frame.  Everything had to be on the ground, and UNC had 4 players in the center of the box against Haley and Macario.

And fourth, the pitch.  All the rain made it REALLY soft, and that keeps you from cutting and accelerating with confidence.  That plays to a more physical style, which the Tar Heels bring in spades.

First half: UNC actually changed formations, to a 4-4-2, worried about our outside forward play after the UCLA game.  The midfield four was a diamond, which both put one player pressuring forward and another essentially tracking Macario the entire game. Catarina had a tough match, but a large part of that in both matches was 2-3 players around her AT ALL TIMES.

But the other half of it was the pressure it put on Breide and in the defensive midfield space for Stanford.  Stanford is used to having time to switch the ball through Breide, or, if not, room in the backline.  Their formation actually put their two forwards cutting off balls from Girma and Hiatt outside, and put someone immediately on Breide if the ball goes up the middle.  They did a really good job of preventing Stanford from changing the point of attack by taking away the Cardinal's primary channels for doing so.

Initially, it didn't seem like it would matter.  Stanford bossed the first 10 minutes, earning I think 4 corners in the first 10 minutes.  But the Tar Heels endured, cranked up the physicality, and Stanford didn't respond.  A couple of loose passes by the Cardinal defense and midfield (Hiatt and Doms had a couple of howlers each in the first half), and UNC got that great look off the broken up set piece that was hit directly into the wall.

Two hard physical challenges, one on Wesley and one on Smith, without a call or even a talking to from the referee emboldened UNC and disrupted Stanford.  But that's Anson's style - his team style is what has set the style for American women's football for decades - get a lot of big, fast, strong players, then feed them a raw meat fairly Darwinian practice regimens, and provoke a style "if you don't play right to the edge of the cardable, you're not playing" levels of physicality.  It's one reason I hate watching Stanford play them - beyond the fact that they tend to injure our best players.

Meanwhile, Haley was getting chopped whenever she received the ball back to goal, or grabbed to prevent her from working back to it (I clearly remember one ball where she settled it backwards a yard or two, and a second went by where she didn't move toward the ball - you could see an arm being held).  And very few set pieces to be had.

When Stanford subbed, it was difficult to watch Goad and Greubel back out of challenges that UNC was winning because their midfielders were simply playing through them. 

Second half was back and forth.  Stanford never could get on rhythm, because of UNC disrupting the midfield, and forcing the ball to one sideline or another, preventing the Cardinal from switching the point of attack with the ease to which they are accustomed.  It ended up taking a lot of long diagonal balls in the air to the far side of the field to try to spring players forward.

Best chance of the game was probably the hammer that Smith hit off the crossbar late in the second OT.

As for the shootout - um, none of the three saves was particularly great.  As a keeper, the first Meyer save was in the perfect spot - not too wide, and about two feet off the ground - that's where you will be if you simply fall in that direction.  The UNC save on Malatskey was a better spot, but Malatskey telegraphed going right pretty openly, and didn't hit it with much pace.  And the last one , by the UNC freshman, was just awful - it hit Meyers in the legs - she almost overdove it, as she did the third one.  

What was more important were two conversions.  First, the fifth, by Kennedy Wesley.  She needed to make that shot and coolly opened her hips to bait the UNC keeper to the left and calmly finished into the open right side.

And second, by the player who I think was really the MOP, but plays a position that won't get it - Naomi Girma.  Her PK hit SIDE NETTING about 5 feet off the ground - that's the definition of unsaveable.  And she time and again cleaned up 1v1s, and through balls, and stepped forward to short stop UNC attacks from getting off the ground.  Stanford gave up 1 goal in two games against two of the top 10 offenses in the country.  

Overall, UNC did everything they could to disrupt Stanford's attack, and were largely successful.  But they didn't have enough offense to get past Stanford's backline and keeper - Meyers did have a darned good game, except for some questionable distribution with her feet and an ill-advised attempt to come out and punch a cross that she completely missed.

To be honest, UNC women play like Stanford's men - high pressure, physical, and looking for anything to pounce on.  It's not a fun style to play against when you are a possession and passing team.

More in a minute,

VG

---

Yeah, the backstory was posted on a soccer discussion forum.  Apparently what people thought was a UCLA soccer parent was behind the goal ragging on Meyers all game long (people were thinking it might have actually been Fishel's dad.) And after she gave up a pretty soft goal, it only escalated.

What was not shown was that apparently he tried to go into the backstage area at Avaya to continue to, ah, remonstrate.  With more profanity involved.

Or at least that was what was being reported.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Now that I'm in less danger of apoplexy...

First things first.  Gutty, gritty, and all those other words about the effort from the side tonight.

Second, the officiating.  Not unbalanced, but the way it was balanced was definitely in favor of North Carolina - a LOT of physical play let go.  Stanford is NOT good at that part of the game - they don't have an enforcer "hard" type player on the side, which is at points a weakness.  

Third, and most concerning throughout the game - our lack of an aerial game really haunted us all game long.  Corner after corner with no solid attempts to show for it.  No one getting up to put some really good serves into the box on frame.  Everything had to be on the ground, and UNC had 4 players in the center of the box against Haley and Macario.

And fourth, the pitch.  All the rain made it REALLY soft, and that keeps you from cutting and accelerating with confidence.  That plays to a more physical style, which the Tar Heels bring in spades.

First half: UNC actually changed formations, to a 4-4-2, worried about our outside forward play after the UCLA game.  The midfield four was a diamond, which both put one player pressuring forward and another essentially tracking Macario the entire game. Catarina had a tough match, but a large part of that in both matches was 2-3 players around her AT ALL TIMES.

But the other half of it was the pressure it put on Breide and in the defensive midfield space for Stanford.  Stanford is used to having time to switch the ball through Breide, or, if not, room in the backline.  Their formation actually put their two forwards cutting off balls from Girma and Hiatt outside, and put someone immediately on Breide if the ball goes up the middle.  They did a really good job of preventing Stanford from changing the point of attack by taking away the Cardinal's primary channels for doing so.

Initially, it didn't seem like it would matter.  Stanford bossed the first 10 minutes, earning I think 4 corners in the first 10 minutes.  But the Tar Heels endured, cranked up the physicality, and Stanford didn't respond.  A couple of loose passes by the Cardinal defense and midfield (Hiatt and Doms had a couple of howlers each in the first half), and UNC got that great look off the broken up set piece that was hit directly into the wall.

Two hard physical challenges, one on Wesley and one on Smith, without a call or even a talking to from the referee emboldened UNC and disrupted Stanford.  But that's Anson's style - his team style is what has set the style for American women's football for decades - get a lot of big, fast, strong players, then feed them a raw meat fairly Darwinian practice regimens, and provoke a style "if you don't play right to the edge of the cardable, you're not playing" levels of physicality.  It's one reason I hate watching Stanford play them - beyond the fact that they tend to injure our best players.

Meanwhile, Haley was getting chopped whenever she received the ball back to goal, or grabbed to prevent her from working back to it (I clearly remember one ball where she settled it backwards a yard or two, and a second went by where she didn't move toward the ball - you could see an arm being held).  And very few set pieces to be had.

When Stanford subbed, it was difficult to watch Goad and Greubel back out of challenges that UNC was winning because their midfielders were simply playing through them. 

Second half was back and forth.  Stanford never could get on rhythm, because of UNC disrupting the midfield, and forcing the ball to one sideline or another, preventing the Cardinal from switching the point of attack with the ease to which they are accustomed.  It ended up taking a lot of long diagonal balls in the air to the far side of the field to try to spring players forward.

Best chance of the game was probably the hammer that Smith hit off the crossbar late in the second OT.

As for the shootout - um, none of the three saves was particularly great.  As a keeper, the first Meyer save was in the perfect spot - not too wide, and about two feet off the ground - that's where you will be if you simply fall in that direction.  The UNC save on Malatskey was a better spot, but Malatskey telegraphed going right pretty openly, and didn't hit it with much pace.  And the last one , by the UNC freshman, was just awful - it hit Meyers in the legs - she almost overdove it, as she did the third one.  

What was more important were two conversions.  First, the fifth, by Kennedy Wesley.  She needed to make that shot and coolly opened her hips to bait the UNC keeper to the left and calmly finished into the open right side.

And second, by the player who I think was really the MOP, but plays a position that won't get it - Naomi Girma.  Her PK hit SIDE NETTING about 5 feet off the ground - that's the definition of unsaveable.  And she time and again cleaned up 1v1s, and through balls, and stepped forward to short stop UNC attacks from getting off the ground.  Stanford gave up 1 goal in two games against two of the top 10 offenses in the country.  

Overall, UNC did everything they could to disrupt Stanford's attack, and were largely successful.  But they didn't have enough offense to get past Stanford's backline and keeper - Meyers did have a darned good game, except for some questionable distribution with her feet and an ill-advised attempt to come out and punch a cross that she completely missed.

To be honest, UNC women play like Stanford's men - high pressure, physical, and looking for anything to pounce on.  It's not a fun style to play against when you are a possession and passing team.

More in a minute,

VG

---

Yeah, the backstory was posted on a soccer discussion forum.  Apparently what people thought was a UCLA soccer parent was behind the goal ragging on Meyers all game long (people were thinking it might have actually been Fishel's dad.) And after she gave up a pretty soft goal, it only escalated.

What was not shown was that apparently he tried to go into the backstage area at Avaya to continue to, ah, remonstrate.  With more profanity involved.

Or at least that was what was being reported.

VG