12-10-2017, 03:04 PM
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
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