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.

SoccerMom_5

Quote from: Goldenrj on September 15, 2017, 11:39:26 PM
Quote from: SoccerMom_5 on September 12, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on July 06, 2017, 01:16:04 PM
Lefty, if you are saying style matters but usually is so far down the list of factors that style doesn't end up ultimately tipping the decision then we pretty much agree.

I can just imagine if Serpone had called our house and told my kid he really wanted him at Amherst and would even give him a push if needed with admissions.  If my kid had responded "I'm not interested because I don't think you're willing to play through the midfield" I think I probably would have lost my mind.  In that scenario, my kid had better hope he's got a Williams or Haverford or similar in his pocket.

There are just too many scenarios in D3 to account for, including a wide range of player abilities and a wide range of competitiveness of the schools.  A kid who is told he is one of a top tier contender's top three recruits will feel differently than a kid who is offered a roster spot but told competition for playing time will be fierce.  Some other kids might know they are borderline in the coach's eyes and are satisfied with just a promise of a fair shot to make the roster.  Of course the more leverage one has the more a kid can afford to make more specific factors like playing style important (i.e. if I've got admits to Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Hopkins and Wash U and all those coaches want me badly then I can more easily factor in style and personality issues).  Ironically, if I'm not seeking a top 50 school and I'm comfortable with a bunch of schools in the 75 to 150 range then perhaps it's easier pick style (although the confidence level on a particular coach staying might not be as great).

As for playing time, there may be schools that need players and where decent playing time is pretty much guaranteed.  At the most competitive programs I'm not sure why kids (or at least their parents) would think they definitely will play.  I've certainly seen a good number of USSDA players end up mostly sitting on benches.

Lol.  My kid told Serpone that.  And then he declined his Amherst offer and went somewhere else. 

But in the end, the final choice was not ultimately about soccer. Although the choice not to go to Amherst was mostly about soccer. 
He had really thought Amherst would be his top choice prior to the soccer visit at Amherst.

So -- I think that playing style does factor in to the decision, at least for some of the players; it mattered for my kids...to an extent. 

But -ultimately- I don't think soccer is really a deciding factor for a kid to attend a NESCAC school.  At least, in our house, that has been the case for both of my soccer-playing kids who are in college. 

They both considered the soccer component, but neother of them chose the school that was the best soccer-fit.  They chose for the environment that they really wanted to be in and the academic programs they found most appealing.

IMO, that is the best way to do it.  These kids aren't going to be pros, so go where the education/major is a fit and college soccer is a bonus.

Yup.   ;D

Clotpoll

Sixth game into the season, 2-2-1 record. My son's team has gone 100% hit & hope longball. Wretched stuff, but there's only 3-4 real players in the side, and two are hurt. That's all it takes for a decent side to revert to u10-type stuff.

It's a soccer-like game...but it's not real soccer.

sokermom

Quote from: Clotpoll on September 17, 2017, 07:27:30 PM
Sixth game into the season, 2-2-1 record. My son's team has gone 100% hit & hope longball. Wretched stuff, but there's only 3-4 real players in the side, and two are hurt. That's all it takes for a decent side to revert to u10-type stuff.

It's a soccer-like game...but it's not real soccer.

LoL.  Yeah, pretty painful to watch.  My son's coach had the upper classmen tell the freshmen class by asking them "what is college soccer" and them answering "it is not soccer.  play anyway we can to win".

Domino1195

Freshman parents say the same thing across the country: "This isn't soccer - what happened to the 'beautiful' game?" You'll not have a better example of what it takes to win a championship than to watch Tufts vs Calvin last year.

http://www.ncaa.com/video/soccer-men/2016-12-03/diii-mens-soccer-championship-calvin-tufts-full-replay


Ejay

Quote from: Domino1195 on September 18, 2017, 11:32:37 AM
Freshman parents say the same thing across the country: "This isn't soccer - what happened to the 'beautiful' game?" You'll not have a better example of what it takes to win a championship than to watch Tufts vs Calvin last year.

http://www.ncaa.com/video/soccer-men/2016-12-03/diii-mens-soccer-championship-calvin-tufts-full-replay

From the announcer within the first minute - "Tufts is going to try and get their bodies going by playing long ball forward and get into the offenseve third immediately"

bestfancle

It is funny actually, to see teams be successful playing "ugly" soccer, but it happens all the time! At the D3 level, at team of athletes could press to exhaustion, rotate in players (due to substitution rules), and win a game with a quick counter or two.

It's less prevalent at the professional level, but not extinct. Leicester city won the league in a very similar way.

Clotpoll

Leicester? You're high. Direct and defensive? Sure. But there was supreme technique, skill and clinical play all over the pitch for them during that run.

bestfancle

Quote from: Clotpoll on September 19, 2017, 04:28:22 AM
Leicester? You're high. Direct and defensive? Sure. But there was supreme technique, skill and clinical play all over the pitch for them during that run.

I didn't say Leicester lacked skill. I just said it wasn't beautiful soccer, which it wasn't. They scored some great goals and Vardy and Mahrez are incredible (along with Kante and others that year), but you'd struggle to find people who say Leicesters direct style was more attractive than what city/united are doing this season, or teams like Barcelona have done in the past. 

Laserpen123

Leicester played a style that would be very hard to replicate by any team. Their defense was held together by a small French midfielder, and once he left, the defenders were back to being Robert Huth and Wes Morgan. Their offense was a mixture of counter attack and picking their moments, which for a whole season, worked wonderfully. But once teams figured out Mahrez's magic, and Vardy's speed and tenacity, they were able to slow them down enough

firstplaceloser

Quote from: bestfancle on September 18, 2017, 01:36:57 PM
It is funny actually, to see teams be successful playing "ugly" soccer, but it happens all the time! At the D3 level, at team of athletes could press to exhaustion, rotate in players (due to substitution rules), and win a game with a quick counter or two.

It's less prevalent at the professional level, but not extinct. Leicester city won the league in a very similar way.

Loras....