The CardBoard
MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! (/thread-15207.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: MSoc: Stanford vs Indiana - 115! - Embo - 12-10-2017

It's a mansierre.  For chesty men.  :P

No, it's a heart rate monitor.  Tour de France riders wear them also.

That was awesome.  And go Women's VB!

Re: MSoc: Stanford vs Indiana - 115! - TheFarm07 - 12-10-2017

THREE-PEAT!!!!!! First time both the men's and women's soccer championship were claimed by the same school!

Go Cardinal!!  :) :) :)

Re: MSoc: Stanford vs Indiana - 115! - 81alum - 12-10-2017

Wow!  Congratulations to our guys on their third in a row.  Superb.  And especially our graduating seniors.

I was getting very worried near the end.  It seemed that every time we had a throw in Indiana would come up with it.  And every time we were competing for a ball Indiana would come up with it.  This game was much, much more physical than the women's game.  It seemed that countless times people got shoved out of the way or to the ground with no call. 

But in the end 100+ minutes of scoreless play end with a steal and a quick improvised shot that gave us a national championship.  A lot quicker than penalty kicks!

Re: MSoc: Stanford vs Indiana - 115! - Viking_Guy - 12-10-2017

Quickly, the harnesses hold physical monitors - they keep data on players' fitness, heart rates, etc.

Longer analysis coming...

Re: MSoc: Stanford vs Indiana - 115! - pefloresjr - 12-10-2017

So great.  The cat still hasn't come out from under the table after I jumped up shouting GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAALLLLLL over and over!!!!  Really good game by two excellent college teams.  Stanford deserved the win after playing the game with more possession and better chances.  Indiana was REALLY physical and knew the ref wouldn't be calling much in a final. 

I went to both women's volleyball games this weekend and really hope they are able to take us to #116!  Merete Lutz needs to go out with a championship. 

Stanford, Home of Champions.

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: MSoc: Stanford vs Indiana - 115! - DenverCard - 12-10-2017

Three national championships in Men's Soccer is so remarkable as to almost defy explanation.  The parity among the teams and the quirky way in which the team that scores the most goals may not have controlled the majority of the play makes is so difficult to win just one championship.  And to do it again, and yet again, all while turning over players from one year to the next just boggles my mind.

While Stanford certainly has, and in years past has had, excellent players, I think that they have had far from the most talented teams during the past two years.  (In 2015, with Jordan Morris, Brandon Vincent, and others, they very well might have had the most talent.)  This year's team is not particularly athletic with respect to team speed or big/dominating players.  Their attributes are indefatigibility, tenacity, and savvy.  Their defense beats teams up, their midfielders press until the other team starts to crumble, and the office is creative and unpredictable.

I would have favored Indiana going into today's game, and yet Stanford very much deserved to win.  Akron in the previous round, a coin flip at the start.  Wake Forest at Wake Forest -- an unlikely win.  And yet once again, they did it.

A fantastic game, a fantastic tourney, a fantastic season!  To the third power!  Wow!!!!

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Stymie - 12-10-2017

...and I though he was having his Brandi Chastain moment....

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Viking_Guy - 12-10-2017

Okay, the second half was a back and forth affair.  Stanford had the bulk of possession, but several times one of our outside backs or midfielders got caught too far up the pitch and gave the Hoosiers space to work in, and they counterattacked.  Not effectively :), but they counterattacked.

Their one really good chance was a throughball in the 5th minute of the first overtime, when Marion got knocked off the ball trying to go forward, and the Hoosiers sent the ball in behind Beason on the left side, but Corti was quick off his line to smother it before Rennicks could run onto a shot.

The officiating was okay - there was a standard of physical contact allowed that favored the Hoosiers, a bigger team, but it was consistent.  But the yellow card on Skundrich in the 88th minute was crap, sold by an overly dramatic collapse to the turf.  Indiana's Toy was good at that.

That said, if Bryce Marion tried the same "push the ball outside and try to run past my defender" one more time, I was going to get upset.  At both the officiating and him - he was getting bodied and held off the ball, but it hadn't been called all day, and he was ending up on the ground and out of the play time after time.

Did anyone see the clash that led to Sam Werner being booed by the Indiana crowd all day?  The camera cut away on a ball in the midfield as Werner ran up the left flank in the first half, and then on a wide shot an Indiana player was on the ground.  But he became the Hoosier fans' special friend for the day at that point.  Which makes the denouement all the more delicious :).

The goal was a good encapsulation of the reason Stanford both had the advantage and won.  Indiana, UNLESS they had a long spell of possession, refused to commit many people forward to the attack.  I can remember a couple of counter-attacks by the Hoosiers that started off 2 v 3 or 3 v 3.  Then a few seconds would go by, and it would be 3 v 5.  Then 3 v 6.  Then 3 v 7.  With nary a Hoosier midfielder to be seen.  They just weren't coming forward unless the ball started with them in possession and moving it through the midfield.  The only other exceptions were set pieces, which was why my heart was in my throat on every corner and foul called, especially the one on Skundrich in the 88th.

Stanford, OTOH, COMMITS.  They go forward in numbers, counting on their defense to cover for long enough for them to recover if necessary, but also giving them high pressure and the chance to generate chances in the opponents' end.  Which is exactly how the goal was scored - Stanford had four players in the opponents' box on a half-chance out of a throw-in in the corner, and Werner committed to the tackle.  Indiana's defender Dorsey tried to play around him, and Sam stuck a leg in, won the ball, then hit a reaction shot through Indiana's two center backs and over the keeper into the underside of the crossbar and in.  If Dorsey had gotten around Warner, he would have had a lot of space.  But Sam, as with his teammates, was willing to take that chance that Indiana, for the most part, was not.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/939954939404701697/vid/1420x720/95kHDhSKHkIOtoNG.mp4

All in all, a deserved result, and great not to go to PKs.

I was reading some of the other college soccer forums, and all the ACC fans were complaining about how Gunn's style is driving people away from watching soccer.  I was wondering what recreational pharmaceuticals they were employing, but kept it shut.  I think they were mistaking going to PKs for being happy going to PKs, and complaining about a smothering defense.  Would you rather watch Indiana play - yes, some pretty passing, but a whole lot of pointless possession, or Stanford, who may not play pretty, but play FAST and ATTACK?  I found it especially rich given the Hoosiers' utter indifference to offense after scoring 1 goal in the semi.  I don't think I've ever seen Stanford content with 1 goal until the last 2-3 minutes of a match.

And that brings up my biggest reason for liking the Cardinal - WORK RATE.  Stanford may very well be the hardest working soccer team I've ever seen - forward on offense, high pressure on the opponents, getting back and into shape on defense, and covering for each other as necessary.  That goes to the team's fitness and motivation - and that's the coaches motivating and training, and the players buying in.  As a keeper, I always thought work rate was the best thing that could be said about a player - he's got a good motor.  That describes Langsdorf, Skundrich, Gilbey, Werner, Baird, pretty much the entire team.  And I think it also sets the substitution patterns - the harder you work, the more minutes you see.

3 in a row, for the second time ever (the first being Arena's Virginia teams).  First holders of both the men's and women's championships in the same year (Stanford - the pinnacle of college soccer!).  Now over 1200 minutes (1214, to be precise) without conceding in championship play.

What a program.  What a team.

Go Card!

VG


Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - needle - 12-10-2017

I have no clue about soccer but I am pumped reading these posts! Congrats to the men's team on another national championship!

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - 81alum - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 02:08 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:I was reading some of the other college soccer forums, and all the ACC fans were complaining about how Gunn's style is driving people away from watching soccer.  I was wondering what recreational pharmaceuticals they were employing, but kept it shut.  I think they were mistaking going to PKs for being happy going to PKs, and complaining about a smothering defense.  Would you rather watch Indiana play - yes, some pretty passing, but a whole lot of pointless possession, or Stanford, who may not play pretty, but play FAST and ATTACK?  I found it especially rich given the Hoosiers' utter indifference to offense after scoring 1 goal in the semi.  I don't think I've ever seen Stanford content with 1 goal until the last 2-3 minutes of a match.
Thank you VG for you analysis and for the help you give educating the rest of us about the game.

In answer to your question, I think I did enjoy the women's games more than the men's, and if you ask me why I just enjoyed all those precise short passes that extended their possession.  It was fun to see the defense running ragged and getting frustrated while our women played keep away.  You could see the geometry of the game at work and every so often a crack would open up and there would be a longer pass and a scoring threat.  With the men I saw a lot of passes that were somewhat "off," and a lot of long kicks when the defense seemed to take away those short passing lanes.  It seemed as if every tackle worked, every throw in was a turnover, and nearly all the long passes went to the other side.  A bit frustrating to watch for me.

Do they keep track of possessions and errant passes in some sort of soccer box score?  It would be interesting to compare. 

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - FarmBoy - 12-10-2017

But why design them to look like bras? You'd think you'd get more market acceptance with a different aesthetic.

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - terry - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 02:08 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:I was reading some of the other college soccer forums, and all the ACC fans were complaining about how Gunn's style is driving people away from watching soccer.

A few questions --

What specifically do ACC fans dislike about Gunn's style?

Why do they think it drives people away from watching soccer?

Do ACC teams play a different style?

Do ACC fans recognize that the ACC underachieved in this tournament? The ACC had 3 of the top 4 seeds and 5 of the top 8 seeds, but advanced just one team to the final four. Of the ACC's 7 seeded teams (all in the top 12), 6 of them lost to lower seeds or unseeded teams (the exception was North Carolina).

Do ACC fans realize that the objective is to win, and that there are no artistic expression points on the scoreboard?



Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Viking_Guy - 12-10-2017

81A--

I think the men's speed and quickness compresses the field - there is too little time on the ball for a lot of touches UNLESS you manage to beat one player and get into the space they should be defending.  On the women's side, you have an extra split-second to make changes, compose yourself, etc.

But I get frustrated with the women constantly taking a 99% safe back pass over taking a 75% safe squareball or any riskier play. I've watched the Cardinal play themselves into big messes by letting other teams bring their pressure forward as our women's side pushed the ball around the back.

The problem is, I think that is a style that works really well if you are substantially better than the other team, but, as the talent gap narrows, the team that is taking chances and being more direct starts to have an advantage.

I guess my issue is this - having watched our women for years, and other teams that are possession-oriented, at times I think they value possession and style more than results.  With Stanford, it sometimes seemed like they were either going to try to pass the ball through 6 players in the box so they could score from 6 yards, or being content launching a 30-yard shot from outside.  And they would lose games where they outshot the opposition 3 or 4 to 1.  Scoring a goal can be pretty, but often it's a result of an unpredictable and chaotic game flow - the scramble in the box, the ball taking a deflection, a ball falling just right as a player sticks a leg in on a tackle.

And so I'm more accepting that sometimes what's not pretty is what's effective.  At least with the Stanford men, it's not a passive bunker or absorbing pressure and only looking for the counter-attack, which is what far too many teams accept as the way to play.

YMMV.  And I do admit, watching the Stanford women is a pleasure the vast majority of the time - except for those occasional lazy passes at the back (hello, chipping a ball across the face of your own defense rather than sending it forward?)  Of course, that may be more about the kit than the play :).

VG


Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - oldalum - 12-10-2017

I do not understand the ACC fans' complaints unless they are mostly just sour grapes. What soccer lacks most, and would make it more exciting to watch, is GOALS. So complaining about a team that attacks all the time, generates lots of chances, and sometimes leaves itself vulnerable to quick counterattacks as being bad for spectating seems nonsensical. 

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Farm93 - 12-10-2017

I like the way to women play but they benefit from talent superiority at so many positions.  They were the #1 team and likely had 5 or 6 of the 15 best college players in the USA.    That allowed them to play a more organized game that also included possession and creative attack.  They really could win playing almost any style because they really were the better team with the better players.

I don't think the men's team is blessed with such an obvious talent differential.  They needed to pick a style that optimized their talent and make it work.  Their relentless, full effort, aggressive press style clearly bothered Pac-12 teams and I suspect it is hard for opponents to deal with.  That style takes so much training and conditioning to pull off, but they clearly believed in it.  It may not appeal to the most casual soccer fans, but it is a path that allows them to win.  Which I believe is the objective of the game. 

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Viking_Guy - 12-10-2017

More specifically for Terry--

The specific instances I remember were people saying they were surprised by Gunn not being poached by an MLS team.  To which the chorus of responses were of the tenor "Yeah, as if we didn't have enough attendance problems..."

I think they dislike his emphasis on closing the opponent's midfield down as quickly as possible in an attempt to regain possession - not allowing a team to easily build up an attacking sequence, having multiple defenders attack the ball, basically being disruptive on defense.  They want a more free-flowing game where defenders are giving ground, and the midfield is artistically dancing through with the ball at their feet.

They think that possession soccer, and that kind of ball movement, is what is attractive about soccer, I think.

The other thing I thought was that they were mistaking being willing to go to PKs with being satisfied going to PKs.  Stanford won the last two championships, 3 out of 4 games, in PKs after a 0-0 draw.  That is a legitimate challenge for the game - low-scoring affairs can be tough to watch.  But at least the Cardinal keep attacking, even if they're not scoring, which is more than can be said for a lot of teams in tight games.

I think the men still haven't had their Catarina Macario - the player who can both be incisive with the ball at her feet AND is an elite finisher.  Morris was fast and powerful, but still only is playing with one foot.  Langsdorf can finish, but he's rarely going to beat anyone off a 1v1 dribbling move.  Baird or Bashti might, but Baird has issues finishing and Bashti, I'm not sure Gunn trusts to hold a high workrate for an extended period.  Werner might be the best combination dribbler/finisher we have.

The ACC does play a more midfield-dominated style - UVa, Wake Forest, etc.  North Carolina, their one College Cup entrant, plays a 3-4-3, trying to dominate the midfield.  Indiana DESTROYED them in the other semifinal, but was again, unwilling to send a lot of players forward, and after the Hoosiers went up 1-0, they played an even more defensive game.

No, I don't think they recognize the game is different than it was in the early 1990s, when Virginia was dominant, or in the mid-2000s, when a series of ACC teams won.  The players are faster, fitter, and quicker.  They've been playing high-level soccer their entire lives (albeit you can decide how effective the US development system is).  They were complaining about ONLY getting five of the top eight seeds, and 7 of the 16. In other words, they may have a bit unrealistic baselines at this point.

It also points to a couple of other things - the still-strong regional bias of the soccer community to the ACC and Tidewater areas (with a little room for the Big 10 and specific sides), and the same issue we have with the SEC gaming the RPI in college football - there are more small-school programs to build a resume against in those areas, more leagues where you can schedule a mid-major team that will end up with a good record, rather than having to play against a small set of local rivals who know you very well and REALLY want to knock you off.

And the expectation that their priors will eventually update to conform to a different reality - well, that's about as likely as an SEC fan admitting that Alabama may not have been a deserving entrant in the college football playoff this year :).

VG


Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Viking_Guy - 12-10-2017

BTW, all the emphasis on how those free-flowing games would boost the scoring, if only the NCAA would accept that ACC teams should really be the only ones invited to the College Cup:

Since 1980, there have been 3 games in which more than 3 goals were scored in the NCAA championship.  Only one of them involved an ACC team - and that was Clemson losing 4-0 to Stanford two years ago.  St. John's beat FIU 4-1 in 1996, and Indiana beat Stanford 3-1 in 1998.

Here's the last 10 years:
2007 Wake Forest 2 Ohio State 1
2008 Maryland 1 North Carolina 0
2009 Virginia 0 Akron 0 (Virginia 3-2 in PKs)
2010 Akron 1 Louisville 0
2011 North Carolina 1 UNC Charlotte 0 (Jeremy Gunn's Charlotte team)
2012 Indiana 1 Georgetown 0
2013 Notre Dame 2 Maryland 1
2014 Virginia 0 UCLA 0 (Virginia 4-2 in PKs)
2015 Stanford 4 Clemson 0
2016 Stanford 0 Wake Forest 0 (5-4 in PKs)

and of course, today.

So in the last 11 championship games, 5 have been 1-0.  Three have been in PKs.  Only 3 have involved the winning side score more than once.  And a whole lot of the teams involved were from the ACC.

(EDIT: I also think that the 1-0 scorelines are emblematic of how TOO many teams react to scoring in a championship game - get ahead 1-0, and THEN bunker in.  A la Indiana in the semi-final - again, I saw one set up, with the ball 45 yards from goal, that was 6 across the back about even with the penalty spot, 3 about 25 yards out, and 1 guy chasing the ball. THAT's boring.)

Soccer may have a systemic problem with scoring, but I'm not sure the ACC solves it either.  I would rather watch a team attempting to take the ball away, trying to generate chances, then an endless retreat absorbing pressure followed by trying to score through 8 or 9 defenders in the last 20 yards of the pitch.

VG


Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Stymie - 12-10-2017

I watched most of the match and good to the boys.  But... since I did this after watching Man U.vs. Man C. over lunch, I think that the U-17 squads of both Manchester sides would embarrass both LSJU and Indiana terribly.  The technical and instinctive and "professional" skills at the highest NCAA level is pitifully inferior to that of the world class nations and clubs.  Much more of a divide than thagt of Alabama or Clemson of Stanford vs. The 49ers.

IMO

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - terry - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 03:28 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:They were complaining about ONLY getting five of the top eight seeds, and 7 of the 16.

Thanks for the detailed response, VG.

The idea that the ACC deserved even better seedings is not supported by the evidence. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that based on the results in this tournament, the ACC is something of a fraud. The ACC had 9 teams in the tournament, 7 of which were seeded (all in the top 12). As a group, they underachieved considerably --

- None of the 9 ACC teams defeated a seeded opponent -- let alone a higher-seeded opponent.

- 7 of the 9 ACC teams lost to unseeded opponents (5 of them) or lower-seeded opponents (2).

- 6 of the 7 seeded ACC teams played worse than their seedings, losing to lower-seeded or unseeded teams.

By comparison, #9 Stanford defeated three higher-seeded teams -- #1 Wake Forest, #2 Indiana, #5 Akron.

The details:

#1 Wake Forest -- lost to #9 Stanford after beating two unseeded teams
#3 North Carolina -- lost to #2 Indiana after beating three unseeded teams
#4 Louisville -- lost to #5 Akron after beating two unseeded teams
#6 Duke -- lost to unseeded Fordham after beating one unseeded team
#8 Clemson -- lost to unseeded Coastal Carolina
#11 Virginia -- lost to unseeded Fordham
#12 Notre.Dame -- lost to unseeded Wisconsin
unseeded Virginia Tech -- lost to #7 Michigan St. after beating one unseeded team
unseeded North Carolina St. -- lost to unseeded Old Dominion

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Viking_Guy - 12-10-2017

Stymie--

That's why the part about the "US developmental system." :)

It's been debated ad nauseum, but the US soccer developmental system is based on soccer, as other sports, not being a future job for the kids.  The academies of most European clubs would kill their age-group counterparts in the U.S., because at age 12 or 13, those kids play soccer and train 4-6 hours a day, and go to school for 4-6.  That leads to a level of expertise that the American system just can't match.

They also TRAIN, rather than scrimmage or play matches.  The matches are more fun, and keep the players interested, but the training builds the skill base in a way that match play does not.  Given that it's not a "job" in the US - the kids are most often paying, sometimes a large amount, to participate - it's hard to keep kids motivated to work without the "reward" of a fun scrimmage. (EDIT: I vaguely recall a study of soccer cultures that stated that for kids in the U.S., match and scrimmage play was something like 40-50% of the time they devoted to soccer.  The same number was something like 20% in Europe.)

Another issue - in the US, it's a suburban (and Hispanic) sport.  But it's not a street sport - you don't see constant pickup games  everywhere, and if you did, the players would get kicked off the fields for not having a permit. This is what the "pay to play" debate is about - that the highest level club teams often have fees in the thousands of dollars a year - because that's how the coaches make money.  If you can't afford it, unless you are superlatively talented, you get little exposure.  I know my nephew and his family have faced decisions like this - play for a town team that has a volunteer coach and low fees, or pony up $1500 per 10 week season to play for an elite travel team with a pro coach who has connections to the USSoccer developmental team.  Which is the way you make it onto those sides.  He's a very good player, but the cost of playing "elite" soccer precludes both training in a high-level system and exposure to being selected for a higher level team.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the US Soccer debacle - now that Gulati finally seems to be deciding not to try again for president.  The MLS academies are producing better players, and some of them are foregoing college to play in Europe (your Pulasics et al).  But we seem to have a cultural thing about team sports ONLY being a paying career path in a very few games - men's football, basketball, and baseball, and maybe women's soccer.  Maybe a remnant of the whole "amatuer" thing, which always seemed to work to the advantage of the well-off?

Anyhow, it's a good conversation to have.  Rather than the endless "ACC RULEZ!!!" I see on a lot of college boards.

There's a reason I love this little corner of the internet.

VG