[81alum]

I will be interested in VikingGuy's analysis. 

This was the biggest conference game of the year.  After beating UCLA 7 times in a row, we lost to them twice last year. including in the tournament on UCLA's way to the national championship.  Yesterday's game was played in LA.  The first half seemed to me to be quick, precise, with UCLA having more chances in the first part of the half and Stanford in the second part.  Every pass was closely contested but possessions tended to be long due to the generally good passing.  It was quite a display.

The second half opened with a Stanford score early.  LaBonta gave us the lead with a magnificent volley off of a deflection coming from a corner kick.  I felt, though, that it was almost too early--at the 52 minute mark.  There was a long ways to go and our defense had shown some signs of break down occasionally.  Would being ahead cause a little complacency?

In fact our defense--the best in the country up to this point--seemed to be having a few problems with UCLA.  Quite a few times it seemed that the UCLA players were flat out faster than ours and got in behind our defense more regularly as the second half wore on.  Worse, our center back got elbowed in the face during one of the scrums in front of our goal and had to go out, and was replaced (apparently, if I figured out what the announcers were saying) with a frosh midfielder.  Whether it was that, or just getting tired after all those contested passes, our defense seemed to not be quite as effective from that point on.

At the 76 minute mark UCLA scored off a fairly long blast that angled just above and beyond Campbell's reach.    And with only about 5 minutes left UCLA got in behind again and took a low shot from Campbell's left that crossed the face of the goal and just tucked itself inside the right post. 

Thus the number 1 team defeated the number 3 team in the country. 

I don't know our team or soccer all that well.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching the game up until the last 15 minutes, then I was horror struck.  We looked like we were not quite as fast, not quite as precise with our passes, or quite as organized.

[81alum]

I will be interested in VikingGuy's analysis. 

This was the biggest conference game of the year.  After beating UCLA 7 times in a row, we lost to them twice last year. including in the tournament on UCLA's way to the national championship.  Yesterday's game was played in LA.  The first half seemed to me to be quick, precise, with UCLA having more chances in the first part of the half and Stanford in the second part.  Every pass was closely contested but possessions tended to be long due to the generally good passing.  It was quite a display.

The second half opened with a Stanford score early.  LaBonta gave us the lead with a magnificent volley off of a deflection coming from a corner kick.  I felt, though, that it was almost too early--at the 52 minute mark.  There was a long ways to go and our defense had shown some signs of break down occasionally.  Would being ahead cause a little complacency?

In fact our defense--the best in the country up to this point--seemed to be having a few problems with UCLA.  Quite a few times it seemed that the UCLA players were flat out faster than ours and got in behind our defense more regularly as the second half wore on.  Worse, our center back got elbowed in the face during one of the scrums in front of our goal and had to go out, and was replaced (apparently, if I figured out what the announcers were saying) with a frosh midfielder.  Whether it was that, or just getting tired after all those contested passes, our defense seemed to not be quite as effective from that point on.

At the 76 minute mark UCLA scored off a fairly long blast that angled just above and beyond Campbell's reach.    And with only about 5 minutes left UCLA got in behind again and took a low shot from Campbell's left that crossed the face of the goal and just tucked itself inside the right post. 

Thus the number 1 team defeated the number 3 team in the country. 

I don't know our team or soccer all that well.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching the game up until the last 15 minutes, then I was horror struck.  We looked like we were not quite as fast, not quite as precise with our passes, or quite as organized.

[oldalum]

UCLA has some very fast players who are hard to deal with. The one who scored their first goal is a track athlete and used her speed to create some space from her defender and made a perfect shot over the GK that then dipped down under the crossbar. Several of the goals we gave up last year were shot like that. UCLA's second goal came after we turned the ball over in our half, so our defense was not set and made an error in allowing the unguarded run behind us that resulted in the second goal. UCLA uses its speed to put a lot of pressure on us when we have the ball, and we end up passing the ball before we are really ready.

Fatigue may have played some role, but both teams essentially used only 2 subs each. UCLA's first goal was by their fast outside back against our outside back, both of whom played all 90 minutes. Where fatigue may have come into play is that none of our forwards tracked back with that UCLA outside back when she came down the field, possibly because they were tired at that point. A forward might have had a better chance of keeping up with the UCLA speedster. UCLA's second goal was off a turnover by one of our subs (who was therefore not fatigued), and was scored by a player who had sat the first 16 minutes of the second half so was better rested than our same outside back defender who didn't see or go with her on her run behind our defense. I think a bigger factor was that after going one goal down, UCLA played with a much greater sense of urgency and intensity, and put us under more pressure. In fact, UCLA should have scored less than a minute after our goal but their player didn't put the short-range shot on frame.

Our center back who was injured came back in after a few minutes, so that was not a factor in the goals.
LaBonta's score was terrific. One odd thing I noticed is that there were no offside calls in the game at all.

The fact is UCLA is really good. They have all their starters back from last year's national championship team (!), they are as good as us at every position and better at a few, and they are well coached; we can beat them but it's really tough to pull off. I hope we are able to win out and get a #1 or #2 seed in a different regional so that we don't have to play them again until the College Cup.

[oldalum]

UCLA has some very fast players who are hard to deal with. The one who scored their first goal is a track athlete and used her speed to create some space from her defender and made a perfect shot over the GK that then dipped down under the crossbar. Several of the goals we gave up last year were shot like that. UCLA's second goal came after we turned the ball over in our half, so our defense was not set and made an error in allowing the unguarded run behind us that resulted in the second goal. UCLA uses its speed to put a lot of pressure on us when we have the ball, and we end up passing the ball before we are really ready.

Fatigue may have played some role, but both teams essentially used only 2 subs each. UCLA's first goal was by their fast outside back against our outside back, both of whom played all 90 minutes. Where fatigue may have come into play is that none of our forwards tracked back with that UCLA outside back when she came down the field, possibly because they were tired at that point. A forward might have had a better chance of keeping up with the UCLA speedster. UCLA's second goal was off a turnover by one of our subs (who was therefore not fatigued), and was scored by a player who had sat the first 16 minutes of the second half so was better rested than our same outside back defender who didn't see or go with her on her run behind our defense. I think a bigger factor was that after going one goal down, UCLA played with a much greater sense of urgency and intensity, and put us under more pressure. In fact, UCLA should have scored less than a minute after our goal but their player didn't put the short-range shot on frame.

Our center back who was injured came back in after a few minutes, so that was not a factor in the goals.
LaBonta's score was terrific. One odd thing I noticed is that there were no offside calls in the game at all.

The fact is UCLA is really good. They have all their starters back from last year's national championship team (!), they are as good as us at every position and better at a few, and they are well coached; we can beat them but it's really tough to pull off. I hope we are able to win out and get a #1 or #2 seed in a different regional so that we don't have to play them again until the College Cup.

[Viking_Guy]

81A--

You two have covered most of what I would write.

The first goal, I'm not sure if it was fatigue, or what, but one of the weaknesses of the system/formation Stanford plays is "wide in the midfield."  Because we play with three midfielders, they often cluster near the center of the pitch.  When the Bruins' right back, Ally Courtnall, came down the sideline, our left back Stephanie Amack was caught - she had a player tucking in behind her (in her zone), and Courtnall coming forward.  Ideally, a forward would be tracking, but in watching the replay, you can see Chi standing at the center line in the background.  Courtnall cut inside, wrong-footing Amack, and none of the midfielders gave her any cover, letting Courtnall come all the way to the 18 before taking a far-too-open shot that gave Campbell no chance.

And as oldalum says, the second goal was a turnover.  Can't remember if it was Doll or LaBonta (edit: oldalum may be right, Farr was on the pitch for Doll at that point), and both of them were often guilty of this last night, but she tried to hit a short possession pass horizontally to Andi Sullivan, who didn't step toward it quickly enough and got knocked aside and to the ground easily by a Bruins midfielder - left her and three others rushing at our backline, which was out of position, and couldn't adjust quickly enough.  Looked an awful lot like the goal in the Utah game, where LaBonta stepped forward and missed a bouncing ball, letting it run in behind her to an unmarked Ute player.

The Stanford goal was a beautiful volley by LaBonta, abetted by a breakdown by the Bruin defense.  They left an unmarked Cardinal player on the front post on a corner kick, and Rowland came out to try to punch the ball away, only succeeding in clearing it to the top of the box and taking herself out of the play.  Lo took the shot quickly enough that Rowland was just beginning to recover to her line.

Yep, the Bruins are just plain faster - both Courtnall and Dydasco were getting around Amack and Liedle with ease (not to mention Romine and Bauer, when they had to step out).  And Stanford's speed is all concentrated in their frontline, with Chi, Walker-Hartshorn and I hope eventually Mariah Lee - I would love to see that lineup together, but Lee generally only sees the field when Chi or Ryan sub out.

The kind of game you see is what results - Stanford often has to bypass the middle and take "Route 1" - the long ball over the top, hoping that Ryan or Chi can get on the end of it.  Because they are outgunned in the midfield, and, if pressed, will immediately pass back or wide, stopping most counterattacks fairly quickly.  They are still really missing the Mariah Nogueira/Kirsty Zurmuhlen type of big player who can take the physical challenge of someone like Sam Mewis, who was knocking Doll, LaBonta and Sullivan off the ball with ease.  She may have been the one who stripped Sullivan in the buildup to the game-winning goal (although I think she may have received that ball later in the sequence before threading it through to Annie Alvarado on the right.)

More generally, at times like this our women's soccer side feels like our women's basketball side - we concentrate on technical skill and passing perfection so much that we run into trouble against teams that play physically and/or fast pressure.  Stanford would try to play in tight spaces and make perfect through ball passes and end up turning the ball over for a quick counterattack down the wings.

I also think Stanford SHOULD have played the subs more last night - one of UCLA's few weaknesses has been an unwillingness to play reserves, and yet our subs got fewer minutes than theirs did last night.  And I think that definitely played a role in the space opening up for their two goals - the afore-mentioned Chi lingering at midfield on the first goal, and very slow recovery by Stanford after the giveaway on the second.  The only other thing I would've liked to have seen was the ball wider in the attacking third - Chi and Ryan spent a lot of time running at Dahlkemper and Oyster, and I don't believe they ever got through.  And LaBonta kept trying to hit the perfectly weighted through ball in the center, rather than taking the ball wide for a cross.

Again, though, the Bruins are the best team in the country.  We could beat them, but I stand with the Pac-12 announcers from last night (although the one UCLA alum was a bit hard to take with her fawning over their play) - I hope these two teams don't play again until the College Cup.

My $.02,

VG

[Viking_Guy]

81A--

You two have covered most of what I would write.

The first goal, I'm not sure if it was fatigue, or what, but one of the weaknesses of the system/formation Stanford plays is "wide in the midfield."  Because we play with three midfielders, they often cluster near the center of the pitch.  When the Bruins' right back, Ally Courtnall, came down the sideline, our left back Stephanie Amack was caught - she had a player tucking in behind her (in her zone), and Courtnall coming forward.  Ideally, a forward would be tracking, but in watching the replay, you can see Chi standing at the center line in the background.  Courtnall cut inside, wrong-footing Amack, and none of the midfielders gave her any cover, letting Courtnall come all the way to the 18 before taking a far-too-open shot that gave Campbell no chance.

And as oldalum says, the second goal was a turnover.  Can't remember if it was Doll or LaBonta (edit: oldalum may be right, Farr was on the pitch for Doll at that point), and both of them were often guilty of this last night, but she tried to hit a short possession pass horizontally to Andi Sullivan, who didn't step toward it quickly enough and got knocked aside and to the ground easily by a Bruins midfielder - left her and three others rushing at our backline, which was out of position, and couldn't adjust quickly enough.  Looked an awful lot like the goal in the Utah game, where LaBonta stepped forward and missed a bouncing ball, letting it run in behind her to an unmarked Ute player.

The Stanford goal was a beautiful volley by LaBonta, abetted by a breakdown by the Bruin defense.  They left an unmarked Cardinal player on the front post on a corner kick, and Rowland came out to try to punch the ball away, only succeeding in clearing it to the top of the box and taking herself out of the play.  Lo took the shot quickly enough that Rowland was just beginning to recover to her line.

Yep, the Bruins are just plain faster - both Courtnall and Dydasco were getting around Amack and Liedle with ease (not to mention Romine and Bauer, when they had to step out).  And Stanford's speed is all concentrated in their frontline, with Chi, Walker-Hartshorn and I hope eventually Mariah Lee - I would love to see that lineup together, but Lee generally only sees the field when Chi or Ryan sub out.

The kind of game you see is what results - Stanford often has to bypass the middle and take "Route 1" - the long ball over the top, hoping that Ryan or Chi can get on the end of it.  Because they are outgunned in the midfield, and, if pressed, will immediately pass back or wide, stopping most counterattacks fairly quickly.  They are still really missing the Mariah Nogueira/Kirsty Zurmuhlen type of big player who can take the physical challenge of someone like Sam Mewis, who was knocking Doll, LaBonta and Sullivan off the ball with ease.  She may have been the one who stripped Sullivan in the buildup to the game-winning goal (although I think she may have received that ball later in the sequence before threading it through to Annie Alvarado on the right.)

More generally, at times like this our women's soccer side feels like our women's basketball side - we concentrate on technical skill and passing perfection so much that we run into trouble against teams that play physically and/or fast pressure.  Stanford would try to play in tight spaces and make perfect through ball passes and end up turning the ball over for a quick counterattack down the wings.

I also think Stanford SHOULD have played the subs more last night - one of UCLA's few weaknesses has been an unwillingness to play reserves, and yet our subs got fewer minutes than theirs did last night.  And I think that definitely played a role in the space opening up for their two goals - the afore-mentioned Chi lingering at midfield on the first goal, and very slow recovery by Stanford after the giveaway on the second.  The only other thing I would've liked to have seen was the ball wider in the attacking third - Chi and Ryan spent a lot of time running at Dahlkemper and Oyster, and I don't believe they ever got through.  And LaBonta kept trying to hit the perfectly weighted through ball in the center, rather than taking the ball wide for a cross.

Again, though, the Bruins are the best team in the country.  We could beat them, but I stand with the Pac-12 announcers from last night (although the one UCLA alum was a bit hard to take with her fawning over their play) - I hope these two teams don't play again until the College Cup.

My $.02,

VG

[oldalum]

thanks VG for the great analysis as usual.

I agree with you on the lack of substitutions. Something I've noticed about Ratcliffe's substitution habits: he usually substitutes quite a bit in most games, with all of our forwards and some of our mids usually getting some rest, which has the additional benefit of giving the subs more experience. But then in the few games against the very top teams, he substitutes little, as if he feels we need our best players in there. The tradeoff is that our starters get tired, especially when the games go to one or two overtimes. There are few forwards or mids who can play 90+ minutes and run consistently at the speed and over the distance that they really need to in order to be maximally effective. I suppose if he really doesn't trust our bench he has no choice. But that's what did us in in that double overtime game against North Carolina at the College Cup two years ago: Dorrance gave his forwards a rest for the last 10 minutes or so of regulation, we didn't, and when UNC's starters got back in they were just killing us with wave after wave of attacks, and we couldn't mount a response. It was just a matter of time until they scored and they did. I know UNC was deeper and Dorrance didn't think there was much drop off with his subs, but maybe Ratcliffe needs to gamble more on resting starters against the best teams?

[oldalum]

thanks VG for the great analysis as usual.

I agree with you on the lack of substitutions. Something I've noticed about Ratcliffe's substitution habits: he usually substitutes quite a bit in most games, with all of our forwards and some of our mids usually getting some rest, which has the additional benefit of giving the subs more experience. But then in the few games against the very top teams, he substitutes little, as if he feels we need our best players in there. The tradeoff is that our starters get tired, especially when the games go to one or two overtimes. There are few forwards or mids who can play 90+ minutes and run consistently at the speed and over the distance that they really need to in order to be maximally effective. I suppose if he really doesn't trust our bench he has no choice. But that's what did us in in that double overtime game against North Carolina at the College Cup two years ago: Dorrance gave his forwards a rest for the last 10 minutes or so of regulation, we didn't, and when UNC's starters got back in they were just killing us with wave after wave of attacks, and we couldn't mount a response. It was just a matter of time until they scored and they did. I know UNC was deeper and Dorrance didn't think there was much drop off with his subs, but maybe Ratcliffe needs to gamble more on resting starters against the best teams?