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.

Mr.Right

Yes....Will someone please give this woman a good scout on the Landmark?  My expertise is in New England or I would be happy to assist.

Mr.Right

Quote from: blooter442 on June 28, 2017, 11:45:32 AM
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.


Yes...Babson has frankly looked incredibly FLAT since Anderson graduated. He was an absolute legitimate striker that any team would love to have. You are correct that he wasn't the fastest but surely made up for this with his "soccer brain". He would get into some dangerous areas of the field when Babson attacked and was an absolute handful for any D3 defender.

Dog Face

Having seen better looking sides lose to Tufts and Amherst in recent years, one can understand how frustrating it can be to have the better of possession but end up on the losing end.   But as noted, playing out of the back can be a high-risk proposition in a low scoring sport, and you sometimes do see teams with lots of possession without a purpose and then claim they had the "better of the ball."    For teams like Tufts and Amherst, the goal and the expectation is to be in the mix in the tournament most every year, and they speak openly of a national title as a goal, and for better or worse that level of achievement is expected by their athletic directors.  You may not like it, bit it's hard to argue with the results.  The goal is to win, and they have won.  Not to say that's the only way to go about it, as SLU or Messiah or Babson or others may be trying, but they haven't won out recently.  I've been really impressed with Messiah in the couple of times I've seem them play, so will predict we'll see them reemerge (without knowing tons about their losses to graduation and such), but the margin for error in the tournament can be so small on a cold, windy, rainy day in late October.

truenorth

I'm somewhat mystified by the concern with aesthetics and the style of play among college soccer teams (D1 through D3).  College sports are about competition and personal development.  It strikes me that the only college sports where "style" might count would be sports like gymnastics and diving.  Otherwise it's about competing and...on a good day...winning.

My son played for a Bowdoin team that went to the final four while playing a very direct style.  The starting 11 were talented enough to have played a possession style game if that's what the coach had required...but nonetheless they loved competing, loved winning, forged lifelong friendships, and have all "gone pro" in careers outside of professional soccer (as the NCAA ad campaign points out).

Over the longer term, I anticipate that the growing influence of club and academy training on teenage players will produce incoming college soccer players who are increasingly skilled and tactically aware...leading to a "rising tide" that will favor an evolving style of play--as long as its effective and produces results.

PaulNewman

Heads up.  Coming in hot...

Just kidding (sort of).  Thought I had mostly completed my detox from D3 soccer fanaticism, but nothing like a good discussion mixed with some confident new blood and a dollop of simmering chippiness to pull me back in.

1)  I agree with Off Pitch on the "jungle ball" references.  Beyond the term impressing as disturbingly offensive, I also think the meaning as intended here is unfair and at least somewhat off the mark, especially with respect to the top third or top quarter of D3 soccer.  Yes, the speed of play is fast and physicality and athleticism are valued, but if you really can't "play soccer" you don't play.  In other words, because the pressure is high and constant, players have little time on the ball and little time to make decisions.  The kids who cannot control the ball in those conditions and more often than not make some type of positive play will be heading to the bench and/or never see the pitch.  I was always more critical when I watched games streaming as opposed to live.  In person, I have never failed to be impressed by the speed of play, how quickly players have to react, and how skilled they have to be to keep up and achieve some effectiveness.  Does play often or even usually seem frenetic?  Yes.  Are there clearances, especially out of the back, that are excessive and overdone?  Of course.  But who said good D3 soccer should mirror La Liga?  College soccer has a very compressed season where each and every game matters to the kids and coaches.  Margins for error tend to me small, especially towards the end of season and during the tournament.  And don't we perhaps romanticize La Liga and the like? Even there is the play more physical and athletic than one might think at first blush?  How many goals even in La Liga come off set plays, free kicks, scrums in the box, defensive miscues, etc versus beautiful build ups?

2) As for a possession style, I tend to think these arguments are overrated.  This is an area when I tend to be a little cynical because of seeing so many parents complain that their kid is getting a raw deal BECAUSE he is a REAL soccer player as opposed to the athletic beasts accused of warming the hearts of coaches far and wide.  Being really skillful in a vacuum means little.  If a kid can't translate that into being effective in fast-paced, pressure-filled action he simply isn't going to play.

3) Possession teams from what I have seen (certainly not exhaustive and even less live) are Messiah, Messiah, Messiah and OWU.  Not sure about Wheaton (Ill) who strikes me as more frenetic.  Trinity (TX) may be another but the only time I saw them live they got shellacked.  There are a lot of hybrids.  Tufts often is cited as one of the most possession-oriented teams, and the Jumbos certainly have had more than their fair share of skillful, possession oriented players.  But Tufts doesn't really play out of the back the way Messiah does (and OWU to a lesser degree).  I would argue that Tufts is closer to Amherst in style than to Messiah.  That's not a knock for me as I like Amherst, and they have really, really good soccer players.  Tufts is huge and athletic.  Think about their biggest goals last year.  Majumder scored in a scrum-like play off a throw-in nodded deep in the box and aided by a fatal Kenyon error, and then in the title game a goal from a non-scorer in another very scrum-like situation off a corner.  They didn't score off some 15 to 20 pass build-up.  Kenyon is a press team and perhaps shares style qualities with Loras and Amherst, at least by reputation, but I've seen games where Kenyon dominated possession against OWU and versus Tufts possession at worst was 50/50.  Tufts, considered the attractive finesse team, outfouled the Lords by a large margin.  My point is that stereotypes aren't always as valid as we assume or as consistent as we assume.  And I like watching Loras play.  They have some very fine soccer players.  In the 6-7 years I've followed D3 closely Kevin Cavers from Loras was one of the most talented soccer players I've seen in D3.

4) I am a major contrarian when it comes to the complaints about the substitution rules.  To some degree we have to think about the D3 mission.  Participation is a big deal and for me it's a good thing if as many kids as possible can meaningfully participate.  Playing only 12-13 kids in my mind would be a travesty and a recipe for dissension and toxic unhappiness within programs.  D3 doesn't involve the commitment of D1, but the time and fitness demands are still substantial.  No one wants to just sit on the bench for 4 years no matter how much they love their teammates.  And I would note that the teams that I first noticed as playing large numbers were Messiah and OWU.  Loras also.  I'm probably getting into other topics, but reasonably happy players, expectations that sticking with it, improving and continued hard work will yield chances to play, and reasonably happy, proud alumni are major ingredients in developing healthy and winning programs.

5) For the most part I think kids who play D3 soccer LOVE playing soccer.  Yes, the camaraderie, life skills, life lessons, etc, etc are really important, but kids who started playing soccer at 4, 5 or 6 years old and continue through to what one has to do to succeed even at the good D3 level love the game.

6) As an aside, before my Tufts friends tell me how wrong I am, I am a full believer.  The Tufts program appears to be very strong, with a great culture, and a recruiting train that is tough to match.  I don't expect them (or anyone else) to win it every year, but I do think they will be very much in the mix with a good chance most years. 

Clotpoll

Quote from: Mr.Right on June 28, 2017, 10:24:38 AM
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?

Wow. Is this a question you'd ask of a father? Sokermom has asked good questions and contributed to the conversation here. I'm new to the site, but these threads don't appear to be the habitat of stage door moms.

D3soccerwatcher

PaulNewman - very good commentary.  Well thought out and well written. I enjoyed reading it.  I actually agreed with most of your thoughts with the exception of #6.  I'm not much of a Tufts believer (yet).  When they have 5 or 6 stars on their crest I'll certainly be willing to reconsider.

Clotpoll

Fun seeing so many different takes on the NCAA D3 game. I'm really impressed by the arguments made in favor of direct soccer that are based upon the peculiar limitations and rules of the NCAA version of the sport. They are reasonable arguments for the status quo, and it is absolutely true that the NCAA D3 game is a far cry from the gold standard of the world game.

As a fan and coach who's really more interested in the international and club game, however, I still find all college soccer difficult to watch and have fallen asleep- once live, once on the internet- watching even my own son's games. Interesting that after both those games (one was a win, one was a loss, and my son played 90' in both), he expressed disappointment at how poorly both his team and the opponents had played. Even worse was hearing his admission at the end of the season that he hadn't had much fun.

Honestly, I haven't really processed any of that yet, and now my son is back to work prepping for another season. However, I remain convinced that the amateur game in general is pointless and joyless unless there is some attempt to play to an ideal.

None of my feelings on this are original or limited only to me. I follow Gary Kleiban at 3four3.com, and many here might enjoy his work.

sokermom

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 28, 2017, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on June 28, 2017, 10:24:38 AM
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?

Wow. Is this a question you'd ask of a father? Sokermom has asked good questions and contributed to the conversation here. I'm new to the site, but these threads don't appear to be the habitat of stage door moms.

@clotpoll, thanks for believing that being a mom and ability to think sports don't have to be mutually exclusive.  I too am new to the board.  Came here looking for information as son will play in Landmark conference beginning this Fall.

Mr.Right

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 28, 2017, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on June 28, 2017, 10:24:38 AM
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?

Wow. Is this a question you'd ask of a father? Sokermom has asked good questions and contributed to the conversation here. I'm new to the site, but these threads don't appear to be the habitat of stage door moms.


I wasn't trying to be sexist. If your handle was "sokerdad", I would have asked the same question. In hindsight I could have used the word "parent" instead of "mom". That's the best I can do besides apologize which i think is unnecessary over something so slight.

augie77

You weren't "trying" to be sexist?  Glad to hear that. ::)

PaulNewman

Quote from: Clotpoll on June 29, 2017, 12:08:52 AM
Fun seeing so many different takes on the NCAA D3 game. I'm really impressed by the arguments made in favor of direct soccer that are based upon the peculiar limitations and rules of the NCAA version of the sport. They are reasonable arguments for the status quo, and it is absolutely true that the NCAA D3 game is a far cry from the gold standard of the world game.

As a fan and coach who's really more interested in the international and club game, however, I still find all college soccer difficult to watch and have fallen asleep- once live, once on the internet- watching even my own son's games. Interesting that after both those games (one was a win, one was a loss, and my son played 90' in both), he expressed disappointment at how poorly both his team and the opponents had played. Even worse was hearing his admission at the end of the season that he hadn't had much fun.
Honestly, I haven't really processed any of that yet, and now my son is back to work prepping for another season. However, I remain convinced that the amateur game in general is pointless and joyless unless there is some attempt to play to an ideal.

None of my feelings on this are original or limited only to me. I follow Gary Kleiban at 3four3.com, and many here might enjoy his work.

I didn't see anyone make an argument in favor of a more direct style based on the rules, which is different than acknowledging that the rules may contribute to a more direct style which is what you seemed to argue.  I'd guess that most of us prefer a more possession-oriented style.  And some might not agree with the overall assessment of the current state of D3 that you offered.  I personally would tend to concede that the rules may have some relation to a more direct style.  That doesn't mean I prefer direct, but in a forced choice between less direct and what I would consider the negative impact of severely limiting subbing at the D3 level, one has to choose the lesser of two evils so to speak.  And as I alluded to above, while the subbing rules might tend to contribute to a more direct style that is certainly not always the case.  The first teams that I think of in terms of playing 18, 19, 20 or more players are Messiah and OWU (two of the most possession-oriented D3s) and then Loras (which is more consistent with your thesis). 

Also I'm shocked to see your comments about your son being focused on feeling disappointed at the quality of play in the immediate aftermath of a game (or even a few days later) and saying at the end of the season he didn't enjoy himself much.  I can't imagine ANY kids that I know right after a win or loss being focused on how poor the quality of play was.  They might comment that a game was not so well played, or the conditions were poor, or the game was chippy or whatever, but most kids I know are focused on the result, what the game means for the team going forward, and perhaps how they as individuals feel about how they contributed or didn't contribute.  Never heard a kid give an analysis on the state of soccer quality in America after a game or even secretly having such thoughts.  The second thing seems like what we sometimes hear from parents justifying a kid dropping out of high school play --"Johnny loves to play a possession game with his club team, and he's decided (at 15) that he just can't stand how his high school team plays."  Never rings true to me, but in any case, if a kid is not enjoying playing D3 soccer -- for ANY reason -- why put oneself through continuing?

PaulNewman

Quote from: D3soccerwatcher on June 28, 2017, 11:51:11 PM
PaulNewman - very good commentary.  Well thought out and well written. I enjoyed reading it.  I actually agreed with most of your thoughts with the exception of #6.  I'm not much of a Tufts believer (yet).  When they have 5 or 6 stars on their crest I'll certainly be willing to reconsider.

I hear you, but results (so far) speak loudly.  Think of it this way.  Tufts now has the same number of national titles (in just the last 3 years) as OWU (with 30-40 years of excellence).  Tufts has a good thing going right now, which seems kind of obvious at this point.  They are extremely deep and success has a contagion effect.  The confidence level inside the program appears to be extremely high, and I don't see that changing much as long as Shapiro is at the helm. 

Side fun fact...In the last 3 years Tufts has only lost one game in the NCAA tournament.  Part of me would like to focus on their very good fortune in getting home field for two key games and UMass prevailing over Haverford with key players missing, but, to be fair, over the past 3 years Tufts proved that they can win huge games on the road or at neutral sites...beating Messiah at a neutral site, Montclair at Montclair, Rowan at Rowan, etc.

sokermom

Quote from: PaulNewman on June 29, 2017, 01:38:49 PM
Quote from: Clotpoll on June 29, 2017, 12:08:52 AM


Also I'm shocked to see your comments about your son being focused on feeling disappointed at the quality of play in the immediate aftermath of a game (or even a few days later) and saying at the end of the season he didn't enjoy himself much. 

It can happen, if play is direct, when it takes away the critical role midfielders play in possession type of soccer.  I understand strategy should be the style of play to counter the opponent to win the game on that particular day.  However, if players hardly touch the ball if play is direct, then it begins to frustrate the players who are not touching the ball.  Because they feel they did not contribute to the game, win or lose.  Don't know if heat signature maps are done for college soccer but if done that can tell us how teams are playing. 

truenorth

I've enjoyed some of the well informed commentary here.  It seems to me that if one doesn't like the aesthetic of D3 college soccer, the most obvious solution would be to simply not watch it.

There have also been some references to playing styles in the professional game.  My sons are both Man U fans and insisted that I embrace the Premier League.  I adopted Liverpool and am now a passionate fan of Premier League competition.  One could certainly make the case that the style is more "direct" in the Premier League than in La Liga or Serie A, but the speed, power and athletic skill of Premier League athletes makes for compelling theater.

If the analogy holds, then I am completely fine with D3 college teams who play a direct game with speed, power and athletic skill to achieve a result.

As for sokermom, I wish I knew more about the Landmark Conference and could be helpful.  It looks like it's comprised of a number of great schools located in NJ, PA and MD.  I'm sure it's a great league with great competition!