12-06-2019, 06:58 PM
At this point we need a statue for Andrew Thomas... I'd go with him holding up 4 fingers for the 4 PK's he saved last game, but I'm open to suggestions...
NCAA Championship MSoc Stanford wins in PK's!
12-06-2019, 07:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2019, 07:01 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
Thomas guessed correctly on 5 of the 6 PKs. Clemson hit 3 of the 5 perfectly. But Thomas smothered the other 2, including the final one.
The Clemson goalie never put a hand on any of Stanford's shots. The only miss was Bouda who shot high over the goal.
The Clemson goalie never put a hand on any of Stanford's shots. The only miss was Bouda who shot high over the goal.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2019, 07:01 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
Thomas guessed correctly on 5 of the 6 PKs. Clemson hit 3 of the 5 perfectly. But Thomas smothered the other 2, including the final one.
The Clemson goalie never put a hand on any of Stanford's shots. The only miss was Bouda who shot high over the goal.
The Clemson goalie never put a hand on any of Stanford's shots. The only miss was Bouda who shot high over the goal.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
12-06-2019, 07:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2019, 07:31 PM by BostonCard.)
Good stuff from TC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1203132237924823041?s=20[/tweet]
BC
Here's the winning block.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordMSoccer/status/1203137865128923136?s=20[/tweet]
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1203132237924823041?s=20[/tweet]
BC
Here's the winning block.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordMSoccer/status/1203137865128923136?s=20[/tweet]
BC
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2019, 07:31 PM by BostonCard.)
Good stuff from TC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1203132237924823041?s=20[/tweet]
BC
Here's the winning block.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordMSoccer/status/1203137865128923136?s=20[/tweet]
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1203132237924823041?s=20[/tweet]
BC
Here's the winning block.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordMSoccer/status/1203137865128923136?s=20[/tweet]
BC
12-06-2019, 07:42 PM
12-06-2019, 11:19 PM
(12-06-2019, 06:58 PM)81alum Wrote: Cardiac football. Two corners and a save in the final minute of the second overtime, then tied after 5 pks, and then we make and they miss in sudden death. It can't get much closer than that. Whew.
My motto is never bet against a Gunn coached team, isn't always pretty, but somehow his guys deliver far more often than not.
(12-06-2019, 06:58 PM)81alum Wrote: Cardiac football. Two corners and a save in the final minute of the second overtime, then tied after 5 pks, and then we make and they miss in sudden death. It can't get much closer than that. Whew.
My motto is never bet against a Gunn coached team, isn't always pretty, but somehow his guys deliver far more often than not.
12-06-2019, 11:20 PM
Please excuse the pun, but:
You don't want to go against Gunnslingers in a shootout.
Sorry :).
VG
You don't want to go against Gunnslingers in a shootout.
Sorry :).
VG
Please excuse the pun, but:
You don't want to go against Gunnslingers in a shootout.
Sorry :).
VG
You don't want to go against Gunnslingers in a shootout.
Sorry :).
VG
12-06-2019, 11:38 PM
Men:
3 matches
1-1 (advance on PKs)
2-1
1-1 (advance on PKs)
Overall, 4-3
Gritty, ugly, successful.
Women
5 matches
15-0
2-0
4-0
5-1
4-1
30-2
Gorgeous, wonderful, successful.
Men's and women's soccer ARE different sports. Stanford men's and women's soccer ARE different worlds. But one is one match from a championship, then men are two.
Go Card!
3 matches
1-1 (advance on PKs)
2-1
1-1 (advance on PKs)
Overall, 4-3
Gritty, ugly, successful.
Women
5 matches
15-0
2-0
4-0
5-1
4-1
30-2
Gorgeous, wonderful, successful.
Men's and women's soccer ARE different sports. Stanford men's and women's soccer ARE different worlds. But one is one match from a championship, then men are two.
Go Card!
Men:
3 matches
1-1 (advance on PKs)
2-1
1-1 (advance on PKs)
Overall, 4-3
Gritty, ugly, successful.
Women
5 matches
15-0
2-0
4-0
5-1
4-1
30-2
Gorgeous, wonderful, successful.
Men's and women's soccer ARE different sports. Stanford men's and women's soccer ARE different worlds. But one is one match from a championship, then men are two.
Go Card!
3 matches
1-1 (advance on PKs)
2-1
1-1 (advance on PKs)
Overall, 4-3
Gritty, ugly, successful.
Women
5 matches
15-0
2-0
4-0
5-1
4-1
30-2
Gorgeous, wonderful, successful.
Men's and women's soccer ARE different sports. Stanford men's and women's soccer ARE different worlds. But one is one match from a championship, then men are two.
Go Card!
12-06-2019, 11:48 PM
One other thing about today's games - the again-absurdity of NCAA tournament games being behind the paywalls of conference networks. Especially for those of us in West Coast Comcast-land, you cannot get ACC Network, let alone ACC Network+, without an additional streaming service, like Sling. I actually thought about signing up for it today, because 3 of the 4 quarterfinals were from ACC land.
I know that the production costs and the value to those networks are high. But the NCAA owns the rights to those games. I'm wondering if there can be a mandate in the hosting contracts, at least from the round of 16 on, that requires some form of open stream, or at least not behind a "if your carrier doesn't have our network, you're screwed" paywall.
It also brings up the whole "when are people going to stop giving the ACC every benefit when it comes to tournament seeding" thing. The structure of men's soccer allows eastern and midwestern teams to REALLY play the RPI. There are a lot more mid-major and minor DI conferences in the east, so ACC and B1G powers can schedule the "good, but not too good" teams from small conferences - the ones that will go 8-3 in the Colonial, or 9-2 in the MAC, but not really threaten a Virginia or a Wake Forest.
Here's Wake's non-conference schedule: at home against Central Florida, Creighton, Dartmouth, Houston Baptist, away against James Madison (they lost 1-0), at home against Davidson, at home against High Point, at home against William and Mary, and at home against Loyola Maryland (which they tied 1-1.) So 9 non-conference games, 8 at home, and an 8-1 record, against one team that ended up ranked higher than #37.
In conference of note: a 3-2 win against Clemson at home, a 2-1 loss at BC, wins on the road against NC State and Louisville, and a 1-0 home loss to Notre Dame. They advanced on PKs against Virginia Tech, then lost to Virginia in the ACC semis. Ended the regular season 13-4-2. That just doesn't seem like the #4 national seed to me. They even finished the season ranked #9, and with an RPI of #6.
But they'll never have to play a road game before the College Cup.
Meanwhile, SMU finished 15-1-1, RPI #3, ranked #5, and seeded #8. They lost to UVa 3-2 in overtime at Charlottesville tonight.
VG
I know that the production costs and the value to those networks are high. But the NCAA owns the rights to those games. I'm wondering if there can be a mandate in the hosting contracts, at least from the round of 16 on, that requires some form of open stream, or at least not behind a "if your carrier doesn't have our network, you're screwed" paywall.
It also brings up the whole "when are people going to stop giving the ACC every benefit when it comes to tournament seeding" thing. The structure of men's soccer allows eastern and midwestern teams to REALLY play the RPI. There are a lot more mid-major and minor DI conferences in the east, so ACC and B1G powers can schedule the "good, but not too good" teams from small conferences - the ones that will go 8-3 in the Colonial, or 9-2 in the MAC, but not really threaten a Virginia or a Wake Forest.
Here's Wake's non-conference schedule: at home against Central Florida, Creighton, Dartmouth, Houston Baptist, away against James Madison (they lost 1-0), at home against Davidson, at home against High Point, at home against William and Mary, and at home against Loyola Maryland (which they tied 1-1.) So 9 non-conference games, 8 at home, and an 8-1 record, against one team that ended up ranked higher than #37.
In conference of note: a 3-2 win against Clemson at home, a 2-1 loss at BC, wins on the road against NC State and Louisville, and a 1-0 home loss to Notre Dame. They advanced on PKs against Virginia Tech, then lost to Virginia in the ACC semis. Ended the regular season 13-4-2. That just doesn't seem like the #4 national seed to me. They even finished the season ranked #9, and with an RPI of #6.
But they'll never have to play a road game before the College Cup.
Meanwhile, SMU finished 15-1-1, RPI #3, ranked #5, and seeded #8. They lost to UVa 3-2 in overtime at Charlottesville tonight.
VG
One other thing about today's games - the again-absurdity of NCAA tournament games being behind the paywalls of conference networks. Especially for those of us in West Coast Comcast-land, you cannot get ACC Network, let alone ACC Network+, without an additional streaming service, like Sling. I actually thought about signing up for it today, because 3 of the 4 quarterfinals were from ACC land.
I know that the production costs and the value to those networks are high. But the NCAA owns the rights to those games. I'm wondering if there can be a mandate in the hosting contracts, at least from the round of 16 on, that requires some form of open stream, or at least not behind a "if your carrier doesn't have our network, you're screwed" paywall.
It also brings up the whole "when are people going to stop giving the ACC every benefit when it comes to tournament seeding" thing. The structure of men's soccer allows eastern and midwestern teams to REALLY play the RPI. There are a lot more mid-major and minor DI conferences in the east, so ACC and B1G powers can schedule the "good, but not too good" teams from small conferences - the ones that will go 8-3 in the Colonial, or 9-2 in the MAC, but not really threaten a Virginia or a Wake Forest.
Here's Wake's non-conference schedule: at home against Central Florida, Creighton, Dartmouth, Houston Baptist, away against James Madison (they lost 1-0), at home against Davidson, at home against High Point, at home against William and Mary, and at home against Loyola Maryland (which they tied 1-1.) So 9 non-conference games, 8 at home, and an 8-1 record, against one team that ended up ranked higher than #37.
In conference of note: a 3-2 win against Clemson at home, a 2-1 loss at BC, wins on the road against NC State and Louisville, and a 1-0 home loss to Notre Dame. They advanced on PKs against Virginia Tech, then lost to Virginia in the ACC semis. Ended the regular season 13-4-2. That just doesn't seem like the #4 national seed to me. They even finished the season ranked #9, and with an RPI of #6.
But they'll never have to play a road game before the College Cup.
Meanwhile, SMU finished 15-1-1, RPI #3, ranked #5, and seeded #8. They lost to UVa 3-2 in overtime at Charlottesville tonight.
VG
I know that the production costs and the value to those networks are high. But the NCAA owns the rights to those games. I'm wondering if there can be a mandate in the hosting contracts, at least from the round of 16 on, that requires some form of open stream, or at least not behind a "if your carrier doesn't have our network, you're screwed" paywall.
It also brings up the whole "when are people going to stop giving the ACC every benefit when it comes to tournament seeding" thing. The structure of men's soccer allows eastern and midwestern teams to REALLY play the RPI. There are a lot more mid-major and minor DI conferences in the east, so ACC and B1G powers can schedule the "good, but not too good" teams from small conferences - the ones that will go 8-3 in the Colonial, or 9-2 in the MAC, but not really threaten a Virginia or a Wake Forest.
Here's Wake's non-conference schedule: at home against Central Florida, Creighton, Dartmouth, Houston Baptist, away against James Madison (they lost 1-0), at home against Davidson, at home against High Point, at home against William and Mary, and at home against Loyola Maryland (which they tied 1-1.) So 9 non-conference games, 8 at home, and an 8-1 record, against one team that ended up ranked higher than #37.
In conference of note: a 3-2 win against Clemson at home, a 2-1 loss at BC, wins on the road against NC State and Louisville, and a 1-0 home loss to Notre Dame. They advanced on PKs against Virginia Tech, then lost to Virginia in the ACC semis. Ended the regular season 13-4-2. That just doesn't seem like the #4 national seed to me. They even finished the season ranked #9, and with an RPI of #6.
But they'll never have to play a road game before the College Cup.
Meanwhile, SMU finished 15-1-1, RPI #3, ranked #5, and seeded #8. They lost to UVa 3-2 in overtime at Charlottesville tonight.
VG
12-07-2019, 11:26 AM
The announcers were effusive in their praise for Tanner Beason. Said he was the most impressive defender they had seen, not just this season but in the last 10 years.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
The announcers were effusive in their praise for Tanner Beason. Said he was the most impressive defender they had seen, not just this season but in the last 10 years.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
12-07-2019, 12:27 PM
No rubber match against UW, as the Huskies couldn't protect their 1-0 lead against Georgetown.
12-07-2019, 12:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2019, 12:47 PM by DenverCard.)
Some thoughts on the game.
In the "Handicapping the games" thread Farm93 predicted the following:
"Men's soccer - I predict that Stanford won't be able to use their aggressive high pressure strategy to generate mistakes by Clemson. I would expect Clemson to have at least a 60-40 advantage in almost all metrics (time of possession, shots, shots on goal, corner kicks). In other sports that would translate into a win for Clemson. This is soccer so anything in the range from 2-0 Clemson to 1-0 Stanford feel possible."
Although the actual statistics don't show a major difference, such as shots on goal (which I what I always check first), I think a collective metric of the game would give a strong edge to Clemson. I'd have to guess that 75-80% of the time, the ball was on Stanford's half of the field. Unlike a lot of teams that Stanford played this year, Clemson was relentless in putting pressure on Stanford whenever Stanford had the ball, making it really tough to generate any build-up. On offense, a lot of Clemson's attacks unraveled just prior to getting a short, or their shot would be blocked by field players, thereby distorting the statistics. They were a really tough team.
On the other hand, despite the above, a case could be made that Stanford had more actual dangerous shots. Charlie Wehan had the chance to put a volley on goal in the first minute, but he didn't off a very good shot. Ousseni Bouda blasted one off the crossbar later. Gabe Segal rolled a volley at the keeper late. And I seem to recall a few other pretty good opportunities to score.
On the PKs, while it has been said that Andrew Thomas frequently guessed correctly, I think what makes him tough is that he DOESN'T guess. He makes the opposing player strike a very good ball to beat him. Clemson did hit such balls four of out six times. This approach prevents getting beat by either a crappy shot too close to the middle or the strategy of shooting down the middle in anticipation of the goalie leaping to one side or the other. I think to guess is the lower percentage play.
I was most gratified that Thomas blocked the PK shot of Clemson's star striker, Robbie Robinson, during the first five taken to try to resolve the tie. Robinson is a real talent, as he is big, fast, and skilled. But he took at least two dives in the game, one very late that resulted in a free kick just outside the box. Total acting job that led to a very dangerous chance. And Thomas stopped that one too.
As I write this, I see that Stanford's next opponent, Georgetown, just came back to beat UW 2-1 after trailing most of the game. Georgetown had won their previous two tournament games 5-0 and 5-1. I heard that they've trailed in games only a total of 30 minutes all year before UW. Another "impossible" task for Stanford.
Finally, I'm wondering what injury Zach Ryan suffered last night, which took him out early and kept him out. He walked off the field, which is always a relatively favorable sign, but not returning to the game is ominous. His replacement, Bulut, has certain attributes, but Ryan is a much more skilled goal-scorer.
Oh, and to VG's comment about the coverage, I was able to watch the game on the ESPN app on my iPad. The camera was at a pretty remote distance, and my tiny screen make it all the more difficult to see. I do wish some special dispensation would be made for NCAA playoff games. Thankfully, the College Cup is on one of the main ESPN channels.
In the "Handicapping the games" thread Farm93 predicted the following:
"Men's soccer - I predict that Stanford won't be able to use their aggressive high pressure strategy to generate mistakes by Clemson. I would expect Clemson to have at least a 60-40 advantage in almost all metrics (time of possession, shots, shots on goal, corner kicks). In other sports that would translate into a win for Clemson. This is soccer so anything in the range from 2-0 Clemson to 1-0 Stanford feel possible."
Although the actual statistics don't show a major difference, such as shots on goal (which I what I always check first), I think a collective metric of the game would give a strong edge to Clemson. I'd have to guess that 75-80% of the time, the ball was on Stanford's half of the field. Unlike a lot of teams that Stanford played this year, Clemson was relentless in putting pressure on Stanford whenever Stanford had the ball, making it really tough to generate any build-up. On offense, a lot of Clemson's attacks unraveled just prior to getting a short, or their shot would be blocked by field players, thereby distorting the statistics. They were a really tough team.
On the other hand, despite the above, a case could be made that Stanford had more actual dangerous shots. Charlie Wehan had the chance to put a volley on goal in the first minute, but he didn't off a very good shot. Ousseni Bouda blasted one off the crossbar later. Gabe Segal rolled a volley at the keeper late. And I seem to recall a few other pretty good opportunities to score.
On the PKs, while it has been said that Andrew Thomas frequently guessed correctly, I think what makes him tough is that he DOESN'T guess. He makes the opposing player strike a very good ball to beat him. Clemson did hit such balls four of out six times. This approach prevents getting beat by either a crappy shot too close to the middle or the strategy of shooting down the middle in anticipation of the goalie leaping to one side or the other. I think to guess is the lower percentage play.
I was most gratified that Thomas blocked the PK shot of Clemson's star striker, Robbie Robinson, during the first five taken to try to resolve the tie. Robinson is a real talent, as he is big, fast, and skilled. But he took at least two dives in the game, one very late that resulted in a free kick just outside the box. Total acting job that led to a very dangerous chance. And Thomas stopped that one too.
As I write this, I see that Stanford's next opponent, Georgetown, just came back to beat UW 2-1 after trailing most of the game. Georgetown had won their previous two tournament games 5-0 and 5-1. I heard that they've trailed in games only a total of 30 minutes all year before UW. Another "impossible" task for Stanford.
Finally, I'm wondering what injury Zach Ryan suffered last night, which took him out early and kept him out. He walked off the field, which is always a relatively favorable sign, but not returning to the game is ominous. His replacement, Bulut, has certain attributes, but Ryan is a much more skilled goal-scorer.
Oh, and to VG's comment about the coverage, I was able to watch the game on the ESPN app on my iPad. The camera was at a pretty remote distance, and my tiny screen make it all the more difficult to see. I do wish some special dispensation would be made for NCAA playoff games. Thankfully, the College Cup is on one of the main ESPN channels.
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2019, 12:47 PM by DenverCard.)
Some thoughts on the game.
In the "Handicapping the games" thread Farm93 predicted the following:
"Men's soccer - I predict that Stanford won't be able to use their aggressive high pressure strategy to generate mistakes by Clemson. I would expect Clemson to have at least a 60-40 advantage in almost all metrics (time of possession, shots, shots on goal, corner kicks). In other sports that would translate into a win for Clemson. This is soccer so anything in the range from 2-0 Clemson to 1-0 Stanford feel possible."
Although the actual statistics don't show a major difference, such as shots on goal (which I what I always check first), I think a collective metric of the game would give a strong edge to Clemson. I'd have to guess that 75-80% of the time, the ball was on Stanford's half of the field. Unlike a lot of teams that Stanford played this year, Clemson was relentless in putting pressure on Stanford whenever Stanford had the ball, making it really tough to generate any build-up. On offense, a lot of Clemson's attacks unraveled just prior to getting a short, or their shot would be blocked by field players, thereby distorting the statistics. They were a really tough team.
On the other hand, despite the above, a case could be made that Stanford had more actual dangerous shots. Charlie Wehan had the chance to put a volley on goal in the first minute, but he didn't off a very good shot. Ousseni Bouda blasted one off the crossbar later. Gabe Segal rolled a volley at the keeper late. And I seem to recall a few other pretty good opportunities to score.
On the PKs, while it has been said that Andrew Thomas frequently guessed correctly, I think what makes him tough is that he DOESN'T guess. He makes the opposing player strike a very good ball to beat him. Clemson did hit such balls four of out six times. This approach prevents getting beat by either a crappy shot too close to the middle or the strategy of shooting down the middle in anticipation of the goalie leaping to one side or the other. I think to guess is the lower percentage play.
I was most gratified that Thomas blocked the PK shot of Clemson's star striker, Robbie Robinson, during the first five taken to try to resolve the tie. Robinson is a real talent, as he is big, fast, and skilled. But he took at least two dives in the game, one very late that resulted in a free kick just outside the box. Total acting job that led to a very dangerous chance. And Thomas stopped that one too.
As I write this, I see that Stanford's next opponent, Georgetown, just came back to beat UW 2-1 after trailing most of the game. Georgetown had won their previous two tournament games 5-0 and 5-1. I heard that they've trailed in games only a total of 30 minutes all year before UW. Another "impossible" task for Stanford.
Finally, I'm wondering what injury Zach Ryan suffered last night, which took him out early and kept him out. He walked off the field, which is always a relatively favorable sign, but not returning to the game is ominous. His replacement, Bulut, has certain attributes, but Ryan is a much more skilled goal-scorer.
Oh, and to VG's comment about the coverage, I was able to watch the game on the ESPN app on my iPad. The camera was at a pretty remote distance, and my tiny screen make it all the more difficult to see. I do wish some special dispensation would be made for NCAA playoff games. Thankfully, the College Cup is on one of the main ESPN channels.
In the "Handicapping the games" thread Farm93 predicted the following:
"Men's soccer - I predict that Stanford won't be able to use their aggressive high pressure strategy to generate mistakes by Clemson. I would expect Clemson to have at least a 60-40 advantage in almost all metrics (time of possession, shots, shots on goal, corner kicks). In other sports that would translate into a win for Clemson. This is soccer so anything in the range from 2-0 Clemson to 1-0 Stanford feel possible."
Although the actual statistics don't show a major difference, such as shots on goal (which I what I always check first), I think a collective metric of the game would give a strong edge to Clemson. I'd have to guess that 75-80% of the time, the ball was on Stanford's half of the field. Unlike a lot of teams that Stanford played this year, Clemson was relentless in putting pressure on Stanford whenever Stanford had the ball, making it really tough to generate any build-up. On offense, a lot of Clemson's attacks unraveled just prior to getting a short, or their shot would be blocked by field players, thereby distorting the statistics. They were a really tough team.
On the other hand, despite the above, a case could be made that Stanford had more actual dangerous shots. Charlie Wehan had the chance to put a volley on goal in the first minute, but he didn't off a very good shot. Ousseni Bouda blasted one off the crossbar later. Gabe Segal rolled a volley at the keeper late. And I seem to recall a few other pretty good opportunities to score.
On the PKs, while it has been said that Andrew Thomas frequently guessed correctly, I think what makes him tough is that he DOESN'T guess. He makes the opposing player strike a very good ball to beat him. Clemson did hit such balls four of out six times. This approach prevents getting beat by either a crappy shot too close to the middle or the strategy of shooting down the middle in anticipation of the goalie leaping to one side or the other. I think to guess is the lower percentage play.
I was most gratified that Thomas blocked the PK shot of Clemson's star striker, Robbie Robinson, during the first five taken to try to resolve the tie. Robinson is a real talent, as he is big, fast, and skilled. But he took at least two dives in the game, one very late that resulted in a free kick just outside the box. Total acting job that led to a very dangerous chance. And Thomas stopped that one too.
As I write this, I see that Stanford's next opponent, Georgetown, just came back to beat UW 2-1 after trailing most of the game. Georgetown had won their previous two tournament games 5-0 and 5-1. I heard that they've trailed in games only a total of 30 minutes all year before UW. Another "impossible" task for Stanford.
Finally, I'm wondering what injury Zach Ryan suffered last night, which took him out early and kept him out. He walked off the field, which is always a relatively favorable sign, but not returning to the game is ominous. His replacement, Bulut, has certain attributes, but Ryan is a much more skilled goal-scorer.
Oh, and to VG's comment about the coverage, I was able to watch the game on the ESPN app on my iPad. The camera was at a pretty remote distance, and my tiny screen make it all the more difficult to see. I do wish some special dispensation would be made for NCAA playoff games. Thankfully, the College Cup is on one of the main ESPN channels.
12-08-2019, 12:21 AM
It looked like the Clemson goalie was just guessing on the PKs. He mostly guessed wrong and looked foolish. Bouda really blew it on his attempt, given how badly the goalie was doing. It seems to me that a better strategy would be to react to the kick and try to punch it away.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
It looked like the Clemson goalie was just guessing on the PKs. He mostly guessed wrong and looked foolish. Bouda really blew it on his attempt, given how badly the goalie was doing. It seems to me that a better strategy would be to react to the kick and try to punch it away.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »