[Hieronymus]

1698041672[/url]']

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.

[Hieronymus]

1698041672[/url]']

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.