Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SoccerMom_5

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Men's soccer / Re: 2018 World Cup Bracket Challenge
« on: July 20, 2018, 11:49:37 pm »
Sorry for the delay in response.

Yes!!!  Using a VPN works great!  You just have to know what local channels carry the game (BBC Sports and TF1 are a good bet for big games...)   and sign in on your VPN for that country and then log in to the channel's live stream.  It is pretty easy to do.  I recommend ExpressVPN if you don't have one from work.  It is very reliable, extremely user-friendly, and not at all expensive :)
You can probably also find a free VPN service for use now-and-then, but sometimes they aren't worth much.   

Soccer Mom, would VPN work for European club games as well?

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: July 20, 2018, 11:47:52 pm »
Yes, I meant Serpone! Just got the names mixed up. He coached the recruits exactly as we had heard he coaches his team.

One of my kids thought the same thing.  He had really been leaning towards Amherst academically, but also wanted to play soccer while he was in college.  Ended up not choosing Amherst, and that was one reason. (Also, he didn't think the students at Amherst were as friendly as at the other schools he was considering.)

- Weircinski: has been as good on the recruiting side as Murphy. Son has been impressed with his communication. He is at his camp now, and all son has said so far is that the recruits there are no good, but then again by his telling, there have only been a handful of good players in all these clinics combined. In a previous post, someone said Bowdoin "doesn't play pretty." Can someone elaborate on that?
They have been known to sit pretty deep and play direct, although I think it's as much of a function of the players they've had as Wiercinski's philosophy. Then again, maybe that has to do with the "profile" of a typical Bowdoin recruit; Bowdoin has had pretty decent team size but not a ton of trickery or team speed. Then again, with 3 NCAA appearances in 4 years, you can't say it hasn't worked, although they failed to advance past the first weekend of the tournament in that time.

My opinion vis-a-vis Bowdoin isn't always appreciated here, but I understand your position as a Mom, and have watched Bowdoin closely,  so I will mention: Wiercinski seems to stack his talent in the back and so the team tends to sit deep. And their midfield was disastrous this past year, so they often had to play more directly than they had played the year before.
 Sounds like your son is a decent  midfielder. Bowdoin needed someone in midfield who  could connect this year.
Bowdoin had 5 All-Conference Players this year which was more than any other NESCAC team had (as well as a couple (2? 3?) All-Region, and one All-American) They were just missing the connecting piece in the middle; their backline mostly had to circumvent the midfield to get the ball forward. So...  Your son might be able to step right in as a First Year.  (Except... Bowdoin lost almost their entire starting defense...)

So far, son hasn't walked away from a clinic thinking, that's the one. He experienced first-hand that the F&M coaches are the "class act" one poster said they were, and if picking a school were only about coaches, he would go with them. I just worry about him playing in that league and getting bored. It's not a good sign that he's a dramatically better player than all this year's incoming freshmen (coach's words). It was his decision forgo D1, but I do think he should try to get a better fit in D3. Where that is, I don't know. Your opinion is appreciated!

As a previous poster said, find the best fit school-wise (and community-wise) and don't solely let soccer drive the decision.


If your kids play Academy or a high-level club soccer, you are not going to find the soccer you are looking for in D3.  The NESCAC is as close as it gets, but a quality u16 or 17 Academy team could beat any of these teams without working very hard at all.  There will be quality kids on each team, but they get spread to thin because there aren't enough of them.   And the coaches don't always seem to recognize what they've got, for various reasons, I suppose. 

Assuming he can get in to all of them, I would suggest that your son should pick the school he likes best.  With the exception of my oldest son eliminating Amherst, and the others not even applying there, as a result...  We discussed the schools from the point of view of: if you blew out your knee in the first week of first preseason, and could never play soccer again, which school would you want to spend the next four years at.  They each chose that way; they each played soccer at their chosen school; they each had frustrations at times, with style and level of play, with coaching issues, and other things... But in the end, they have loved the schools they have chosen and they have really enjoyed being part of their teams. 

I know it is hard to convince a kid of this at the end of junior year, but it has been my experience that ... As they get closer to the end and it comes down to the wire on final choices, they begin to show more wisdom, and are more amenable to considering making a pragmatic choice.

Good luck.  I know the stress you are going through.  I have been through it,  also! :(
In my experience, it all works out okay, and better than you can even imagine when looking at it the summer after 11th grade.  But also in my experience, nothing anyone says makes it feel any better at that point in time.

Best of luck to your student in his college search.  And I hope that you can enjoy watching his u18 year!

Men's soccer / Re: 2018 World Cup Bracket Challenge
« on: July 13, 2018, 08:40:05 pm »
Lol.  I literally only signed in to see if Mr. Right was complaining about France's defensive-style games.  Now I wish I would have signed in earlier, because I had France to win it all. 

On another note, and don't know if it will help on this world cup, but for future reference, there are some really easy solutions for watching international games.

I have been using my VPN, and signing in as though I am in France and watching it on TF1.  Then I just Chromecast the game to the big screen.  If you don't speak French and you want to follow the announcers, just sign in as though you are in London and watch on the BBC sports channel.  It's free both places.   If you don't have a VPN (your work probably does), you can always get  super-easy to use VPN access pretty cheaply from ExpressVPN or something similar. . 

I have found a VPN is absolutely always the best way to watch international soccer.  And Both France and England have done a great job with this year's World Cup coverage

Anyway...  Just FYI if the coverage is disappointing you.

Good work Bloots...Before getting started TWO THUMBS DOWN to FOX for only sending 2 of 6 commentating teams to Russia. John Strong and Stu Holden which is their #1 team so get used to Holden's voice all the way up to the final and JP Dellacamera and Tony Meola their #2. Here is the Deadspin article going into how Fox is doing this on the cheap. I like John Strong and Holden is decent but not of JP. Meola is ehh. Cannot stand Derek Rae...Just some really bad announcing teams...Will miss Darke and McManaman and John Champion...I do give Fox credit for bringing along a solid studio team especially Guus Hiddink.

My favorite quote of the article and possibly the funniest thing I have read in a couple days..."Fox Sports is essentially punting on the World Cup, its entire broadcast plan a limp clusterf*ck, and I for one will be watching the tournament on Telemundo."

Group Winners in Bold and Underlined with 2nd place Bold.

Group A-----Uruguay and Russia-----Russia is one of the weakest hosting nations ever but I cannot remember a host nation not advancing except for South Africa in 2010. 1986 Mexico was not a contender but they won a decent group with Belgium, Paraguay and Iraq. 1994 USA got out of the group of death with Romania with one of the best players in the world at the time in Hagi and quite possibly the most talented team in the world at the time in Colombia and a decent Switzerland team. In 2002, I think Japan got through as well. So whether its the Home Field or a corrupt ref / player or 2 Russia will get through this group. Uruguay is everyone's sleeper pick and I agree they are mighty talented with the 2 CB's and Suarez / Cavani and company. BUT there is ALWAYS one talented team at every World Cup that absolutely SELF-DESTRUCTS. Think France in 2010. I think Uruguay is primed for this role especially if they lose their 1st game. Tons of talent / A manager on his last leg / possible in-fighting and like the USA in 1998 all you need is one player sleeping with another's wife and there you have it. 50/50 Uruguay either cruises or self destructs.

Group B-----Spain and Morocco------Interesting Group dynamics here. You have Portugal and every Portuguese favorite coach Carlos Queiroz coaching Iran. I actually am a fan of Queiroz and will not count Iran out just yet. Spain v Portugal matchup as the 1st game is fantastic for the neutral. The defending Euro 2016 Champs run out of luck in this group. I think the upstart Morrocains snag 2nd.

Group C-----Peru and France------The French have so so much talent but if they play like they did at Home against the US on Saturday against a side with an average of Caps of 6 they are not going far. This is a difficult group IMO. Peru just got fantastic news that their top striker is ok'd to play and their Argentine Coach Ricardo Gareca is a solid manager. When they defeated Brazil in the Copa Am in 2016 at Gillette to end Dunga's run and get to the quarters they proved they belonged. A real slow start in COMMEBOL looked ominous but they went on a tear to qualify with a little help from others. First WC since 1982 and they will be busting. They play defensive against better competition but counter well. Ever since their amazing run to the 1992 Euro Title in Sweden when they did not even qualify but were admitted because of the brewing Yugoslav Wars in the former Yugoslavia forced them to drop out after qualifying. Denmark proceeded to advance out of their group on the final day and defeat Germany and Holland on their way to the title. Amazing story. Anyway, I will not count out Erickson and company but their match against Peru should decide who advances. Australia I do not see moving on with a 38 year old Tim Cahill an company but I have seen more shocking things before. Decent Group for sure with different styles.

Group D-----Argentina and Croatia-----This group will go as planned. This is not Nigeria of 1994. Everyone's favorite team Iceland could possibly get blown out of Russia by Argentina 6-0. Winner of Croatia / Nigeria gets 2nd but Croatia is the better side with better talent.

Group E-----Brazil and Costa Rica-----Brazil is just loaded and breezed through a tough COMMEBOL. They will go 3-0-0 to win the group. I was impressed with Costa Rica in qualifying and think they could snag 2nd but Serbia has more talent and Switzerland will play a tedious style that could get them through. A total toss-up honestly for 2nd.

Group F-----Germany and Mexico----See Group E...Germany cruises to 3-0-0 and a total battle for 2nd. This is not Guus Hiddink's South Korea of 2002 or Sweden of 1994 but they both still have talent.

Group G----Belgium and England-----Belgium has SO MUCH talent that they will win this group if they could defend they would be my sleeper to win it all but they cannot defend. Secretly every American's team to root against England will snag 2nd. I do think Gareth Southgate was a good choice and they have the talent to get to the Quarters but they will screw it up somehow. I know nothing about Tunisia and while I was impressed with Panama in qualifying I do not see them getting a result against either Belgium or England.

Group H----Colombia and Senegal----Colombia just to much talent to not win this group even though I wish they would sack Pekerman as I am not a fan of his conservative tendencies especially with the quality that Colombia has. Still they are mighty tough to break down. Senegal is my upset pick as I think Poland crashes and burns. The Japanese will bust ass but it will not be enough to qualify BUT if there is a Group(which there always is) that gets turned on its head and defy's all predictions this would be my Group to pick.

Round of 16---Winners underlined and in bold.

Germany v Costa Rica

Colombia v England

Spain v Russia

Argentina v France-----Hope my predictions are right and we get this R16 matchup.

Brazil v Mexico

Belgium v Senegal

Uruguay v Morocco

Croatia v Peru

Quarters----Winners underlined and in bold

Germany v Colombia
Spain v Argentina
Brazil v Belgium
Uruguay v Croatia---I know I said Uruguay would self destruct but jesus the winner of Group A has the absolute easiest route to the Semi's.

Semi's-----Wilnners underlined and in bold with score

Germany v Spain  2-0
Brazil v Uruguay   3-1

3rd Place

Spain v Uruguay   5-4


Brazil v Germany  1-1 PK's

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 29, 2017, 07:32:47 pm »
Since I did Tufts seniors I might as well do other Nescac's. I really hate to do Bowdoin because I do not want to start a 2 page rant and rave but here goes.

Lol.  Nah. They are done playing, so I am not watching anymore.  I just signed in to see if National Championship was over or how everyone did.   
You won't hear much from me til next year, if I get really interested in a team.  (I think Colby looks to be very interesting next year.) 

I saw  All Region was released last night.

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 18, 2017, 09:41:39 am »
I believe Van Siclien played for BC Head Coach Ed Kelly at club level. Kelly raved about him but his injuries overshadowed it all. He proved everyone wrong that is for sure.


But why did other schools lost interest after he tore his ACL?  It's a serious injury, of course, but it's not as though the surgery followed by rehab is some of experimental shot in the dark.

The story as I understand it is that Van Siclen wanted to play both soccer and ice hockey in college.  Williams and Bowdoin were among his top choices.  Russo or Sullivan (depending on the timing) wanted him to play only soccer if he came to Williams.  Wiercinski was willing to have him play both, so Bowdoin was the fortunate recipient of Van Siclen's talents.

I believe Sam Ward also plays two sports at Bowdoin.

Good luck to Tufts and Amherst.  (They play today, right? Where are those games?)

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 14, 2017, 10:43:32 pm »
Where are those scholarship professional PK takers when you need 'em???

lol...+k....what about the rule changes?  2 pages on possible rule changes that might have never existed

The referenced rule change is from real soccer rules, to the apparent NCAA college version of those rules.  That is the "change" I was discussing.

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 14, 2017, 10:29:45 pm »
Typical Bowdoin match...They will do it to anyone...3 SOG for Bowdoin and RUN each in 110 minutes

My goodness...
Three shots on goal is a perfectly respectable number of shots on goal!!! 

D1 teams only average four shots on goal per game!   
Notre Dame takes a little over five on average.  Same for Villanova.  And that is NOTRE DAME and VILLANOVA! 

Three SOG is perfectly respectable.   

In fact.... since every shot on goal is the result of an error ( or a string of errors.)  And since every goal definitely is the result of a string of errors.... 
That means:
the more shots on goal, the worse the play actually is. ... because that means somebody is making a lot of errors


Not to beat a dead horse here BUT one final comment..3 SOG is NOT acceptable..I do not know Notre Dame stats off the top of my head but they are coached by Bobby Clarke who has been coaching for years and since the days he was at Dartmouth has played a defensive oriented system. His wings are spread all over this country for good and bad. Wheeler plays his system at Wesleyan as he played for him at Dartmouth. Shapiro assisted the guy at Georgetown who played for Clarke and Shapiro's Tufts sides look a TON like Dartmouth used to look..On and On I could go but I will not..It is Gameday and we move forward...

Lol.  Yeah.  I know Bobby Clark.  He recruited my oldest son. 
And I also know the ND stats:  19 games this season and 107 total SOG. 

And if averaging around five SOG is working out for ND,  three should be just fine for Bowdoin. 

In other fun trivia:
The very highest SOG per game average for a D1 team this year was 8.  And only two teams had that many...Seattle and IU.   

IU played 20 games had 162 SOG, of which 42 resulted in a goal.

In the English Premier League, there are 13 teams averaging under four SOG per game this season.  In the French Championnat, there are 9 teams averaging under 4 SOG per game.  In Serie A, there are seven teams, while the Bundesliga and La Liga each have six teams with less than 4 Shots on Goal per game.

To sum up:
Once upon a time, soccer may have been an "attacking" sport, but... that was a long time ago. Over time, coaches realized that winning games is fundamentally about avoiding mistakes while you find ways to cause the other team to make one.  As teams have gotten better and better at preventing mistakes... the number of goals has gone down.  The less mistakes there have been, the less SOG you will see. 

So... modern soccer is about eliminating errors and compensating for weaknesses.    And trying to create errors and capitalize on the weaknesses of the other team.  So, you have a slow back, use the offside trap. Your midfield can't hold the ball? Overlap.  Your forwards can't finish? Draw a foul. Create a corner.
 But... as the other team is also trying to eliminate mistakes... you should expect to end up with less and less chances.

If you stop waiting on goals, and just enjoy the tactical side of the game, you might be less bored.

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:36:29 am »
The above is false. You do not have to be on the field at the end of the game.

Well, then that is a weird NESCAC quirk, because... normally you have to have been on the pitch at the final whistle to be eligible to kick in the PK shootout.  Unless you stepped off for injury or equipment issues and were not replaced with a sub.  (Or if your keeper is on the field but then subsequently injured.  Then, you can bring on a new keeper regardless.)   

 Otherwise.. only whomever was in at the end of the game can shoot.   

If the NESCAC doesnt follow that rule, then I stand corrected. 
But that is a strange rule not to follow.

  I am pretty sure the NCAA would be following it.   Because that is just a pretty much basic rule.

Nope. Not a NESCAC quirk. NCAA allows players who were not on pitch to participate in penalty shootout.

Lol.  They told me. 
Thanks.  I think that is so crazy.  Never would I have guessed that and can't even speculate as to why the NCAA would have modified that rule.   But...  I have some friends who coach under both college and FIFA/IFAB rules, so I will get a rules comparison from them at some point before next NCAA season.  Then, I will know things like this.

Thanks to all who helped enlighten me on that divergence in the rules.  Never would I have supposed it on my own. 

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:28:27 am »

  And do you think the Bowdoin coach knew he had options but was just adhering to good sportsmanship?

Yeah... sure!  Totally possible.  Before I saw this, I had also said that.  In fact.  I think that it is only sporting to go with the kids you had on the field.  Then no kicker is "fresher" than the others or whatever... but, then it seems to me even more strange that it isn't included in the NCAA rules.  Sporting play should be a requirement. 

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:23:19 am »
Last try here.  No, I don't think I have more faith in "humankind."  I think it wouldn't work.  A "PK specialist" would be just as at risk of missing in those situations as the best players on teams who often are the team's best PK taker and who often miss in these types of games.  Ever seen Messi sky a PK over the bar???  And you didn't answer why you could use a sub for a GK to do PKs only but not use a sub for a PK taker.

Lol.  I did not write the rules.  So, again... it is supposition.
 But..  you dont see a difference between a keeper and a field player?   
First, let's be clear that the keeper is only supposed to sub if injured.  And under FIFA laws, (which applies to Holland) only if you have not used up all of your subs.

I cut and pasted the below from a USYSA-produced coaching license training manual.

3. Only players who were on the pitch at the end of play will be allowed to participate in the shoot-out.
4.A team may replace a goalkeeper who becomes injured during the shoot-out with a substitute, provided the team has not already used the maximum number of substitutes allowed by the competition.
5.If a goalkeeper is sent off during the shoot-out, another player who finished the game must act as goalkeeper.
6.If a player, other than the goalkeeper, becomes injured or is sent off during the shoot-out, then the shoot-out will continue with no substitution allowed.
7.Any player remaining on the pitch may act as goalkeeper, and it will not required that the same player act as goalkeeper throughout the shoot-out.

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:00:28 am »
Assuming you are right, which I don't recall, why would it make sense to be able to use a sub for just the GK for PKs but not use a sub for a kicker of a PK???

Sportsmanship???  Have teams been carrying just "PK specialists"?  Is a PK specialist less likely to miss under the unusual pressure of a NCAA game?  Why do the best players (and shooters) so often miss under those circumstances?  And do you think the Bowdoin coach knew he had options but was just adhering to good sportsmanship?

You don't think teams would start carrying PK specialists if it would potentially keep them alive in tournament playoffs?  Or Cup games? Or... 

That is laudable of you to have faith like that in Humankind.  It probably reflects poorly on me that I do not have such faith in the human spirit.  But...  yeah...  I think they would carry specialists. 

(We have to carry birth certificates to youth tournaments 'cause teams were putting 17 year old ringers on u14 teams.  Lol. )

Obviously they don't currently  carry specialists... because it is actually a longstanding rule that you can't.  (Except, apparently, the NCAA.  Which I did not realize and is probably relying on college honor codes --and budgets-- to restrict that sort of problems. **.)

**again... speculation.  I have no idea what the NCAA arbiters were thinking with that modification of the rules.   

Although... if I were an NCAA coach, I would love to have a bunch of kids like that first shooter from RUN take all of the shots.  That was a phenomenal PK shot.  Holy Cow!   
Edit:  **But... again, I would rather have a rule to "dance with the one you came with."  Shooters should be kids in at the end of the game.  In my opinion.  And in the Laws of the Game.** 

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 10:54:06 am »
SoccerMom, so what is your point re: Bowdoin?  Do you really think the Bowdoin coach doesn't know how it works in the NCAA?

I didn't say he didnt know.  It does occur to me that he wasnt thinking of it or it seems he didnt know as he has only used kids on the field at end of regulation.  Or maybe he feels (as I do) that it would be unsporting to do otherwise.

But that is all speculation.  Never have I ever said what someone does or does not know or think in the NESCAC.  Just like the rest of you and your coaching suppositions... it is all speculation.   

However ...  the rules of the game are the rules of the game.  Those are not speculation.  And I appreciate the update on the NCAA and NESCAC rules.

 Never would I have expected that they did not use the basic rules of the game. (Except the subbing rules, which I knew about and understood.)    Now I know. So, thanks.
I will have to download the NCAA rules and see what other rules they have changed.  Maybe some of the other stuff will make more sense. 

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 10:46:17 am »
Playoffs are the only games when there are PKs.  You keep saying it's a rule and that the rule changed.

I am talking about the "Laws of the Game."   It is a soccer "law."   

Wow.  You're just wrong.  Do you remember when a team in the World Cup just a few years ago (Holland maybe?) used a different keeper just for PKs???

Yes.  Keepers can sometimes be subbed. Which I covered previously.   

It is fine if you think I am wrong... but you might want to check the rules.   I copied some links for you.  Or you can find your own if you dont trust mine.   But...that is absolutely a rule.

 In fact... I expected it to be immutable.  It seems open to a lot of abuse if you let just anyone take the kicks.  Or even keep for them.  Teams could carry PK "specialists" who aren't even really soccer players. 
I mean... you mostly don't come to PKs... but, if you did and you could use whomever you wanted, it seems to me teams would start carrying PK specialists to tournaments.  And that doesn't align with sportsmanship expections or respect for the game. 

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 10:39:04 am »
Playoffs are the only games when there are PKs.  You keep saying it's a rule and that the rule changed.

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: November 12, 2017, 10:26:05 am »
Playoffs are the only games when there are PKs.  You keep saying it's a rule and that the rule changed.

I am talking about the "Laws of the Game."   It is a soccer "law."     

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7