Conference Playing Styles?

Started by Ejay, June 26, 2017, 12:58:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sokermom

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 26, 2017, 07:07:40 PM
70s guy,

To me, a team that doesn't build from the back and work through the thirds on the ground with an eye toward starving the opponent of the ball usually falls into the opposite camp of 50/50 jungle ball. Goalkeepers who launch punts and gk's into a clump of players he's pushed 'up and in' are doing nothing more than creating 50/50 balls which adept defensive sides usually shove right back down their throats. Same goes for backs who can't/won't play thru the 6/8 and bypass the midfield with wild clearances and low percentage passes. This kind of play doesn't require footballing skills; it simply requires speed, stamina and athleticism. That's also 99.9% of teams at all three NCAA levels.

I find this type of game objectionable simply because it doesn't require a tactical, skilled or astute player to execute. All fine and good, but when US players find themselves up against elite competition who have 11 players with a strong mentality and top decision-making skills, well...we've all seen the results.

IMO, neither the NESCAC- nor any other conference in all three divisions- has more than a handful of tactically proficient players sprinkled throughout the entire conference. Tactically AWARE? Maybe, but awareness doesn't equal the individual ability or team will to execute to a plan- any real plan- for 90'. What the NCAA has in spades are excellent technical individuals who are super fit and athletic...which, when you can throw them on the pitch in waves in a liberal substitution setting, is conducive to successful jungle-balling. At the age of 18, soccer becomes a man's game, and that means less time on the ball because defenders close you down fast and passing windows close. Individuals and teams deal with that challenge by either imposing tactical superiority, or they sink to the level of attempting physical, technical and individual solutions to the challenge.

Sad but true.  Coaches instead of building a team around/with technical and tactically savvy players marginalize those type of players demoralizing them. 

Off Pitch

I am somewhat amused to read the generalities in this thread from parents of college freshmen who are now experts on 99.9% of all college soccer being played.  I suppose it is all relative, but their are many teams in New England that play possession-oriented soccer.  Of course there are also many examples of teams playing kickball (I am uncomfortable with "jungle ball" not knowing if there is a similar racial connotation in soccer as when it is used in basketball).  There are precious few soccer teams in the world at any level that play "total football", so it is an unfair criticism of the college game that teams fail to meet that lofty standard. 

jknezek

Quote from: Off Pitch on June 27, 2017, 11:26:04 AM
I am somewhat amused to read the generalities in this thread from parents of college freshmen who are now experts on 99.9% of all college soccer being played.  I suppose it is all relative, but their are many teams in New England that play possession-oriented soccer.  Of course there are also many examples of teams playing kickball (I am uncomfortable with "jungle ball" not knowing if there is a similar racial connotation in soccer as when it is used in basketball).  There are precious few soccer teams in the world at any level that play "total football", so it is an unfair criticism of the college game that teams fail to meet that lofty standard.

I agree with your general premise, but I think the level of possession soccer played in college is lower than at the club level of U.S. soccer. I attribute this 100% to the rules that govern college soccer. Specifically the rules that govern substitutions and practice time. True possession soccer requires way more practice and understanding of where your teammates are going to be in every situation than is possible to establish given the practice limitations, high rate of games, and liberal substitution of athletic fresh legs in college soccer.

Does this mean teams don't play possession? Of course not. That's a silly generality. But I do think it behooves college coaches to play a kick and run style since it is easier to find athletes to fit that system than it is to create the trust and understanding necessary for the best execution of possession soccer. Especially with the constant turnover that is a function of melding a team out of a constantly graduating player base.

This is the same reason you see the summer leagues play so much kick and run. PDL teams are notorious for this style. There is no getting around it in such a short time. It's also why I am hopeful that the development of MLS, NASL and even USL Academies can help create a better style of soccer in the U.S. Relying on college to develop players is not something that can happen in U.S. soccer under NCAA guidelines.

Dog Face

I also find the criticisms of playing style a bit over the top, and concur that the college rules and circumstances is a big driver.  Left unsaid though is that at most colleges with competitive programs, the coach is paid to win- not at all costs, but it's a priority (you don't win, eventually you lose your job, regardless of what a great developer of talent or great mentor to young adults you might be).   

Saint of Old

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 26, 2017, 07:59:42 PM
Saint, at the risk of boiling your blood, I'd submit that no team in the US- including professional- plays anywhere near the Cruyff/Michels ideal of Total Football. That takes years- maybe even over a decade- of choreographed, repetitive and emotionally challenging rehearsal that incorporates complete physical, emotional and intellectual commitment from a tight-knit group of players. That simply doesn't happen in the US, although Brian Kleiban and Joey Cascio seem to have groups that are well along that path and progressing nicely.

As for StL, I've watched them less over the years, simply because I can't stand the way most of their Liberty League opponents play. I am, however, very familiar with Bednarsky, the one guy I'd say you had in the last few years who's one of the rare gifted tactical players at the D3 level. Any other country on the planet, he's a pro player right now.

I watched the Amherst loss, and honestly, I thought StL didn't have the tactical nous across 11 players to see off Amherst. There were long stretches of play where StL jungle balled with Amherst (which is 100% not what you want to do), and it precluded what should've been an easy victory in regulation. At the elite level, a team like Amherst should lose to any tactically-superior side 90 times out of 100 in a playoff or championship setting.

Not at all my Brother.
And welcome to the pre pre season banter!
I love the disagreement, that is what makes this fun on here :)
Perhaps I should be a bit clearer.

I am talking only on a relative basis.
For example, I really think that in the D3 world, Saints have been playing possession soccer since 1990 non stop.
Now "Total Football" is just a term used to describe possession oriented football, in no way (even with my very strong bias) would I compare the Saint program to Ajax or the powerful Dutch teams of 74 and 78.

I will say Ali Montacer '01 is perhaps the closest thing to Cryuff d3 has seen, not because he is a three time all American who led the team in scoring from the #6 position, but because his nick name "Smooth" described an seemingly effortless style.

Your point about Amherst is well taken.
I think that game ended in a tie and SLU lost in penalties, but as I said earlier, I have nothing but respect for Amherst and any championship program who climbed that mountain regardless of style.

I do think there are programs that strive to play soccer in a lets call it a "Complete Football" way.
meaning mostly a passing game that relies on skill and one v one ability moreso than strength and power.
Messiah does this as well, and more recently Calvin and Haverford come to mind as well.

I think this has more to do with the coach than anything else.

Agreed on Bednarsky by the way.
A great Saint who will have an amazing career as a college soccer coach in the future.

I have come to believe that no style is "right".
I am a big admirer of Tufts and the way they play and also the storied Williams program under Russo was perhaps one of the most underrated dynasties in D3 history.

The great thing about our game is the constant evolution that happens.

Regardless of style of play, this game will ALWAYS be 10% physical and 90% mental.

Ours is a thinking mans game.

Clotpoll

Quote from: Off Pitch on June 27, 2017, 11:26:04 AM
I am somewhat amused to read the generalities in this thread from parents of college freshmen who are now experts on 99.9% of all college soccer being played.  I suppose it is all relative, but their are many teams in New England that play possession-oriented soccer.  Of course there are also many examples of teams playing kickball (I am uncomfortable with "jungle ball" not knowing if there is a similar racial connotation in soccer as when it is used in basketball).  There are precious few soccer teams in the world at any level that play "total football", so it is an unfair criticism of the college game that teams fail to meet that lofty standard.

Anyone who's paying close to a quarter mil for an education and/or cosigning student debt paper counts as a d3 soccer expert, in my opinion. Any parent who doesn't make himself an expert? Well...caveat emptor. And one of the caveats we all learn early on is that every NCAA coach- nationwide- claims to play "possession" soccer. Where the rubber meets the road is how well teams can do it under game pressure against waves of fresh defenders. And in that situation, every single team- all three divisions- is woefully lacking.

I'm a 40-year player, coach and club official. I played in an era where some schools brought over drunken, stupid English slobs from pro academies to play old school, direct English football. Many never went to class and returned to England within a year. However, the same kind of mindless, physical longballing that won 40 years ago wins today.

Now, compare that with the changing realities of today's game:

1. Jungleballing is the antithesis of the global gold standard. Young players have unprecedented tv access to countless European games in which old-school scrumball is the target of derision.
2. Direct, old-school football isn't being taught in the top ECNL and USSDA clubs that feed D3.
3. Pass/possess football is actually simpler to coach than scrumball...IF the coach is schooled in it.
4. Pass/possess football is simple, but not easy. It's high-risk, high-reward.
5. There is coaching talent gravitating toward the college game that understands you can't out-Amherst an Amherst to win a championship.
6. Because of all of the above, the dominant style in NCAA soccer will change. The only question is when.

Clotpoll

Quote from: Saint of Old on June 27, 2017, 08:26:11 PM
I think that game ended in a tie and SLU lost in penalties, but as I said earlier, I have nothing but respect for Amherst and any championship program who climbed that mountain regardless of style.

.....

Regardless of style of play, this game will ALWAYS be 10% physical and 90% mental.

.....

Ours is a thinking mans game.

Thanks, StL. However, I believe we'll have turned a big corner when the Amherst style of play becomes objectionable to players, coaches and fans. We must be pretty close to that, since Amherst players themselves have a parody blog that lampoons their 'direct' style of play.

I have a few ideas as to how NCAA D3 teams can transition to a more modern version of the game and will share them as we get close to the season.

D3soccerwatcher

When talking about teams who are absolutely committed year in and year out (and decade in and decade out) to possession soccer that relies on quick ball circulation and savvy tactical awareness supported by keen technical skill - there is none better than Messiah in all of D3 and perhaps in all divisions.  I would venture to guess that going back even as far as to 2000, there have been very few games where Messiah has ever been "out-possessed".

Ommadawn

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on June 26, 2017, 03:57:35 PM
Quote from: EB2319 on June 26, 2017, 02:40:44 PM
This is great info.  How are you able to see all these teams play that you know so much about their style?

Virtually every game is now available to live stream on the home team's website.  If you have the time, there is almost no limit to the number of D3 games you can watch each fall.

It's the best 10+ weeks of the year! 

sokermom

Those who have been watching a lot of D3 soccer comment on Landmark conference please?  Thanks.

Mr.Right

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 26, 2017, 01:41:14 PM
With rare exception, all NCAA teams- all three divisions- play old-school, direct launchball. The few teams that try to incorporate tactical play cannot maintain it for more than 25'-30' in a close, competitive game. All 'winning' sides press for 90', due to the liberal substitution rules, so there's no change-of-pace in attack or use of possession play to allow teams to 'rest while on the ball'. Central players tend to be defensively-oriented workhorse types, and perimeter players are often only instructed to go as hard as they can for as little no as they can, then sub off.

Brandeis, Babson, Haverford, F&M and Oneonta- IMO- are about as close as you'll get to teams that will give you 25-30' of real soccer within any game.

Love to see other opinions as to teams that could be added to the list above.


For the most part I agree with your cynical general assessment of College Soccer, however I would not include Babson in that list. While they try to possess they usually are possessing without progression which is as "boring" as what you call "Jungleball" which is a different way of describing direct play.

Mr.Right

Quote from: sokermom on June 28, 2017, 09:58:07 AM
Those who have been watching a lot of D3 soccer comment on Landmark conference please?  Thanks.

Out of curiosity are you the type of mother that gets involved in all aspects of your son's daily soccer life? Not a criticism at all just curious. Like if you do not agree with something of what the coach is doing will you let them know and offer your opinion?

blooter442

Quote from: Mr.Right on June 28, 2017, 10:20:20 AM
For the most part I agree with your cynical general assessment of College Soccer, however I would not include Babson in that list. While they try to possess they usually are possessing without progression which is as "boring" as what you call "Jungleball" which is a different way of describing direct play.

I agree with this. The last few years they have been a lot like Man United were under Louis van Gaal: lots of possession, but without any real incisive, attacking play – lots of sideways passing – and no real pace. I would agree with Clotpoll that lumping the ball forward and simply running up and down the field isn't the way to play soccer, but I also think that I'm much more frightened by a team with real pace up top that plays the ball forward and gets in behind the defense. From what I can tell, Babson doesn't have either of those things.

In addition to a lack of penetrating play, Babson has lacked another thing – someone to finish off the chances that do come along. I remember Coven remarking to me after the 2013 Brandeis-Babson game that Babson "plays really well in the defensive third, and really well in the middle third, but since Eric Anderson graduated, they don't have anyone up top to finish off the chances they create."

Justin Laurenzo had a great year in 2014, but I didn't see much of him before that – maybe he, too, moved up front, as he was listed as a midfielder. I found him to be quick and skillful. Anderson was never the quickest but he was athletic, tall, and a striker who could both hold up play and finish. The fact that Villari, an outside back-turned-striker, was their leading scorer last year with 7 goals really summed up their lack of effectiveness in the final third. Don't get me wrong, that's a decent return, especially for a kid who is brand new playing up front, but you would think that they'd have other striking options in the team that would yield more goals.

sokermom

Quote from: Mr.Right on June 28, 2017, 10:24:38 AM
Quote from: sokermom on June 28, 2017, 09:58:07 AM
Those who have been watching a lot of D3 soccer comment on Landmark conference please?  Thanks.

Out of curiosity are you the type of mother that gets involved in all aspects of your son's daily soccer life? Not a criticism at all just curious. Like if you do not agree with something of what the coach is doing will you let them know and offer your opinion?

No, not at all.  I study sports and dabbled with sports writing.  For a woman, that is a rare thing, is it?  To satisfy your curiosity may I add that I have a Ph.D.  Now, am I allowed to be curious about Landmark conference? 

Mid-Atlantic Fan

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 27, 2017, 11:00:11 PM
And one of the caveats we all learn early on is that every NCAA coach- nationwide- claims to play "possession" soccer.

Clotpoll welcome to the boards and for generating a fun discussion but I believe that this assessment of yours is 100% wrong. By no means does Serpone at Amherst preach to his recruits or players that they play "possession" soccer. That is just one example and there are many, many more teams and coaches that don't try and play or claim to play possession. To say "every NCAA coach nationwide" claims this is just silly.

On the topic as a whole, different styles of play is what makes the game fun to watch. The challenges and strategies used to combat the opposition's style can be marvelous to watch. I disagree with the entire notion that D3 soccer or any division for that matter needs to be possession based. For most teams that isn't their strength. If you're discussing that it needs to be possession based for player development to help the U.S. Men's national team then that is a different story, but not many D3 soccer players will end up wearing the stars and stripes after college so that is also another pointless argument to try and make.

Messiah has clearly done the best job on a consistent basis since I have been following the D3 landscape and they are a joy to watch, but I was not offended or opposed to watching Amherst win the title the way they did a few years back or the way Tufts clawed their way to the top. There is no right answer at the end of the day and however teams win is all that really matters isn't? As long as the end result is a win does it really matter how the team got it done? I think not.   

Thanks for generating a good topic to talk about. The opinions vary far and wide and it's nice to see some other perspectives.