10-05-2018, 01:11 PM
BC--
Thanks for those sources.
I think the stringing together passes point is a good one, but with the caveat that some of that passing has to be vertical/in the attacking half. If you can string together passes in the opponent's end, your chances of scoring go up dramatically - you're moving the defense, the off-ball defenders are caught between ball and player awareness, etc. But passing for pure possession in the defensive end can be problematic - I remember watching Stanford eat up a pretty good SEC(?) team that retreated further and further into its end in an attempt to "keep the ball", such that eventually their own endline was a constraint. And I definitely remember some "hospital ball" passes back out of the midfield, where it was so obvious that one of Stanford's MFs was simply going to push the ball back to Cook or Girma that the MF's defender streaked past them and was immediately in on the backline with the ball rolling forward. The opposition was that confident that our MF wasn't going to turn.
And OA, I definitely concur about Oregon pushing us to the sideline. I do know I was calling for switches much more often than they were happening last night - but to be fair, the telecast didn't let me see how the Ducks' defense more than 15 or 20 yards from the ball was arranged. I remember one of our really good games against Penn State a few years back, when the Nittany Lions played a "picket fence" pressure with their forwards and attacking MF - the two forwards in a vertical line, cutting Stanford's ability to change the point of attack by simply being staying in a spot that pressured the connection between the two CBs and the space in the center of the pitch where our defensive CM normally receives the pass. It completely broke down our passing game, forcing it to one sideline or the other and forward, and did so without forcing the forwards to run themselves to exhaustion.
The other thing that showed up was the Ducks' ability to play a physical game. The outside forwards and backs spent a lot of time getting pressured by Oregon's bigger players, and I'm betting there was some more-than-usual training room time after yesterday's game. But more than that, at points Stanford's players looked unready to stand up to it. I watched one of our freshmen pull a move that I associate with rec-league coed games - a high bouncing ball, with a Duck moving into it to settle. The Cardinal player literally shied away from contact and put her hands up against a ball coming back up toward her face - and never came with two feet of the player or the ball, which was settled forward and past her into a left-flank attack.
Haley and Macario play a physical game. But one thing I've always wondered about Ratcliffe's Stanford sides - for a team that dominates possession, and often takes an order-of-magnitude more shots than its opponents, why do they draw so few PKs? I mean, given the amount of time Stanford's offense plays in and through an opponent's penalty area, there are very few spot kicks awarded.
Is it the style of the attack? An overreliance on tight passes rather than attacking runs? I just know that especially last night, we kept on getting the ball into the box, then working it away into a corner, and back around the top of the area, rather than trying to turn and face goal, accepting the possibility you might get fouled. The forwards will sometimes do it, to the extent of dribbling into four people. But I'd love to see DiBiasi or Boissiere or Goad or Breide NOT pull up at 24 yards and look to pass the ball into a crowded box or push it wide. I've watched our MFs pull up 5 yards short of their defender at the 25 yard line, and drop the ball off, or try to hit a low-percentage throughball, too often.
VG
Thanks for those sources.
I think the stringing together passes point is a good one, but with the caveat that some of that passing has to be vertical/in the attacking half. If you can string together passes in the opponent's end, your chances of scoring go up dramatically - you're moving the defense, the off-ball defenders are caught between ball and player awareness, etc. But passing for pure possession in the defensive end can be problematic - I remember watching Stanford eat up a pretty good SEC(?) team that retreated further and further into its end in an attempt to "keep the ball", such that eventually their own endline was a constraint. And I definitely remember some "hospital ball" passes back out of the midfield, where it was so obvious that one of Stanford's MFs was simply going to push the ball back to Cook or Girma that the MF's defender streaked past them and was immediately in on the backline with the ball rolling forward. The opposition was that confident that our MF wasn't going to turn.
And OA, I definitely concur about Oregon pushing us to the sideline. I do know I was calling for switches much more often than they were happening last night - but to be fair, the telecast didn't let me see how the Ducks' defense more than 15 or 20 yards from the ball was arranged. I remember one of our really good games against Penn State a few years back, when the Nittany Lions played a "picket fence" pressure with their forwards and attacking MF - the two forwards in a vertical line, cutting Stanford's ability to change the point of attack by simply being staying in a spot that pressured the connection between the two CBs and the space in the center of the pitch where our defensive CM normally receives the pass. It completely broke down our passing game, forcing it to one sideline or the other and forward, and did so without forcing the forwards to run themselves to exhaustion.
The other thing that showed up was the Ducks' ability to play a physical game. The outside forwards and backs spent a lot of time getting pressured by Oregon's bigger players, and I'm betting there was some more-than-usual training room time after yesterday's game. But more than that, at points Stanford's players looked unready to stand up to it. I watched one of our freshmen pull a move that I associate with rec-league coed games - a high bouncing ball, with a Duck moving into it to settle. The Cardinal player literally shied away from contact and put her hands up against a ball coming back up toward her face - and never came with two feet of the player or the ball, which was settled forward and past her into a left-flank attack.
Haley and Macario play a physical game. But one thing I've always wondered about Ratcliffe's Stanford sides - for a team that dominates possession, and often takes an order-of-magnitude more shots than its opponents, why do they draw so few PKs? I mean, given the amount of time Stanford's offense plays in and through an opponent's penalty area, there are very few spot kicks awarded.
Is it the style of the attack? An overreliance on tight passes rather than attacking runs? I just know that especially last night, we kept on getting the ball into the box, then working it away into a corner, and back around the top of the area, rather than trying to turn and face goal, accepting the possibility you might get fouled. The forwards will sometimes do it, to the extent of dribbling into four people. But I'd love to see DiBiasi or Boissiere or Goad or Breide NOT pull up at 24 yards and look to pass the ball into a crowded box or push it wide. I've watched our MFs pull up 5 yards short of their defender at the 25 yard line, and drop the ball off, or try to hit a low-percentage throughball, too often.
VG