I recall reading a comment somewhere that conferences have different playing styles. What are your thoughts on this? I've seen some games in the NJAC, Landmark and the MAC. Obviously talent top-to-bottom varies significantly, but can assumptions be made as to the playing styles of the successful teams? Do the successful Centennial teams play differently than the successful Old Dominion teams?
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.
If I can borrow comparisons with foreign leagues solely in terms of style of play, this is what I'd say:
NESCAC – English Premier League – Physical and athletic. A very competitive league where the gap from top-to-bottom isn't as large as other leagues. Much like the EPL there are a few teams who can play a possession-based game such as Tufts and Williams, but the style of play is pretty direct for the most part. The top teams are always in the hunt – even if, in the case of the EPL, there hasn't been a UCL Champion from the League since 2012, whereas the NESCAC has won the last 3 UAA titles.
UAA – La Liga – Technical and skillful. Pass-and-move is the name of the game, although Brandeis can play direct when necessary – they are probably the most physical team in the league, while Chicago and Rochester are probably the most athletic sides. The teams at the top of the UAA are always relatively competitive in terms of the national picture, but perhaps the opposite of the NESCAC/EPL comparison is true here, as the last four UCL titles have been won by La Liga sides while Brandeis is the only UAA side to have won a national title (and that was before they became members of the UAA).
NEWMAC – Bundesliga – A couple of solid possession teams, but most teams line up relatively "pragmatic" – at least in my experience. I say pragmatic because a "defensive" lineup would be more like Serie A, while the Bundesliga (and the NEWMAC) are relatively balanced.
Interesting, blooter...
I think you give the NESCAC a little too much respect. I don't think the top tier sides have any desire to ever play possession, and the national championship clubs have all been loaded with track & field types who thrive in 50/50 jungle ball. The Amherst-Loras final in 2015 still rates as one of the worst games I've ever seen.
UAA is a challenging league, but much of the challenge comes from travel and heavy home-field advantages. The top sides can play soccer for a few minutes at a time, though.
NEWMAC is interesting, because everyone- except Springfield- tries to play pass/possession. However, all the teams break down under varying degrees of pressure. Springfield plays a remarkably unattractive brand of scrumball but went far with it last year.
Quote from: Clotpoll on June 26, 2017, 02:01:55 PM
Interesting, blooter...
I think you give the NESCAC a little too much respect. I don't think the top tier sides have any desire to ever play possession, and the national championship clubs have all been loaded with track & field types who thrive in 50/50 jungle ball. The Amherst-Loras final in 2015 still rates as one of the worst games I've ever seen.
UAA is a challenging league, but much of the challenge comes from travel and heavy home-field advantages. The top sides can play soccer for a few minutes at a time, though.
NEWMAC is interesting, because everyone- except Springfield- tries to play pass/possession. However, all the teams break down under varying degrees of pressure. Springfield plays a remarkably unattractive brand of scrumball but went far with it last year.
Probably true that I give the NESCAC too much respect, but I cannot think of a more competitive conference top to bottom and with the winning know-how, which is where the EPL comparison came in (for the record, I'm a supporter of a UAA school). As we say elsewhere on the boards, Amherst's brand of soccer is not fun to watch, but they are an athletic group and it is physical/effective. I would still say that Tufts and Williams play solid possession-based soccer, even if it's not tiki-taka.
Agree that travel makes for a tough challenge in the UAA; disagree that there's any significant home-field advantage at any of the grounds, bar Emory, the only team who plays on natural grass (Chicago does as well, sometimes, but they play on turf as well). Anecdotally speaking, I've seen a ton of home losses/away wins in the UAA – of course, that is only my observation.
NEWMAC – Springfield does play a pretty hard-to-watch version of hoofball, but I would also argue that Coast Guard and MIT (since Bovell took over) are rather defensive-minded. The rest can play in the final third, but while Babson and Wheaton are the most attacking sides, I wouldn't say either has been particularly potent in the final third in the last 5 years or so.
This is great info. How are you able to see all these teams play that you know so much about their style?
Son is a NEWMAC player. Was recruited by & visited at several schools in other conferences. I'm also a coach, so I watch some amount of NCAA just to stay on top of it.
blooter, great point on Babson & Wheaton. Babson's lack of finishing has killed them in the postseason recently. Wheaton can score, but their defending is suspect, and the team is super undisciplined. Lots of cards when things get tight.
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.
Quote from: Clotpoll on June 26, 2017, 02:49:07 PM
Son is a NEWMAC player. Was recruited by & visited at several schools in other conferences. I'm also a coach, so I watch some amount of NCAA just to stay on top of it.
Clotpoll, some interesting takes. Could you clarify what you mean by "50/50 jungle ball"? Not sure whether you are implying lack of skill, directness of style, emphasis on physicality, or some, all, or none of the above. In the NESCAC, some on these boards might argue that the teams are all, to some degree, loaded with technical, tactically aware players, so it is the team that can physically impose itself that wins. [Or maybe you are saying that as well?]
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.
The Saints of SLU have been playing total football now for atleast a quarter century non stop.
It caused them to lose badly in the early 90s, but since I think '95 the program has danced almost yearly while playing possession soccer.
I will always be a fan of beautiful soccer played on the ground with skill and speed showcased for 90 minutes, but several teams over the years (Most notably Amherst) have led me to understand that atleast in the college game, there is more than one way to win a championship.
Great teams don't have to play possession football, but the Russo's and Durocher's of the world are getting fewer and fewer in the college game.
Love to see other opinions as to teams that could be added to the list above.
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.
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.
I'm going to risk revealing my soccer-mom ignorance (not for the first, or last time) but, while specific schools have styles of play, I don't know that I would lump entire conferences together. In my limited experience, St Lawrence played the most "beautiful" soccer I'd seen, at a small camp of prospects and incoming freshman -- tight, skilled, fast. Watching Calvin play deep in the NCAA tournament had some satisfying moments. I've never seen Messiah play live, though I think we've watched some online matches. Other than that, Amherst, Haverford, Dickinson, they all looked like powerful guys, long balls, hard tackles. Club soccer usually looks more controlled, with more build up. D3 is, for the most part, not a thing of beauty. For my kid, it is a way to keep doing what he loves, make close friendships, and be at a school he loves.
Midwest, don't worry. Lots of wisdom in your post. I think many sharp D3 players realize it's not so much about soccer as it is leadership, camaraderie, motivation and using your time wisely/self-management.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
Those who have been watching a lot of D3 soccer comment on Landmark conference please? Thanks.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You weren't "trying" to be sexist? Glad to hear that. ::)
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?
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.
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.
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!
Quote from: sokermom on June 29, 2017, 02:05:17 PM
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.
College players, at least after going through the preseason and a few games, should not be surprised by their team's style of play. If they think they aren't getting off the bench because of a style of play that doesn't highlight one's strengths then of course there could be gripes, unhappiness, quitting or eventual transfer. I'm not talking about that. I was responding to the poster saying his kid played a full 90 minutes and after both wins and losses has been preoccupied with the quality of play and/or focused on to what degree the play imitated first-tier European professional soccer. Just sharing my experience that I've never seen a kid who plays 90 minutes come off the field and the immediate concern/comment has to do with "gee, that was ugly soccer."
Let me put this another way as a parent. This was MY order of concern/interest.
* Will my kid get cut in preseason?
* Will my kid earn a roster jersey number?
* Will my kid be included in the first road trip?
* Now that my is playing will he start?
* Now that he's starting will he continue to start?
* He's loving the experience so much what is the chance that his satisfaction level will continue (and even grow) through the next 3 years?
* Once he's mostly no longer starting -- because of perceived stronger athleticism and/or valuing of that athleticism from newcomers -- will he continue to play a substantial role anyway and does he still feel like an important and valued member of the squad?
* Being thrilled at the team's success and how the group of kids now all living together in upper-class apartments feel about each other.
* Watching kid and his closest friends experience some of highest highs and lowest lows, including watching him and All American teammates uncontrollably sobbing at the very, very end knowing that they had developed together from relative mediocrity to one of the best and highest ranked teams in the nation, and now it was all over.
* Knowing that kid on balance enjoyed an incredible athletic team experience along with a superb academic experience and related success.
* Knowing that 20, 30 and 40 years from now his D3 soccer experience will be something he still treasures with gratitude.
sokermom, i'm not aware of any ncaa program that heatmaps players. there are only a handful of teams that even bother to chart passes.
the old adage applies: people only measure what they value.
Quote from: PaulNewman on June 29, 2017, 01:38:49 PM
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?
Who the hell are you, Mr Newman? Please play an entire game every 3-4 days for 10 weeks, then come back and tell us how much 'fun' you had. Please tell us how many tearful moments of winning and growth and learning and losing you had with a bunch of guys who are glued to you from August to November (then again in March & April)...half of whom are nothing but dead weight (yet players you think must be allowed to 'participate' as if it's some sort of u8 co-ed park soccer being played).
Tell us about the joys of year round workouts, spring futsal, team lifts attended by 1/3 of the squad...while you're trying maintain an A average, get a summer internship and catch an outside lecture or two in your field of interest.
Please also then tell me that my kid (or any number of other intelligent players) isn't smart or aware enough to comment accurately on a game he just played. Plenty of NCAA players come from not just a 'soccer background', but a CULTURE in which playing the right way- result be damned- is a matter of personal integrity and of importance far beyond results. These players played 'no results, no scorekeeping, everyone plays' soccer at the appropriate ages and are young adult players who have some idea how to pace themselves to get through an entire 90' without substitution: a skill all 18-21 year old players outside the US have.
I'd go on, but I think it likely whatever more I'd have to say would be utterly lost on someone who appears to have never played and has no clue whatsoever about any aspect of the sport. Lots of good D3 players have had the same observations and feelings my son had last year...and the common thread among the best of them is that they are absolute assassins who also love the sport, love the challenge, love the pain...and keep coming back for more. It's neither a sign of softness nor is it unrealistic to have a higher expectation of self, teammates and the sport.
We probably could get a better idea if you reveal the team he was on
Quote from: Mr.Right on July 01, 2017, 12:29:42 PM
We probably could get a better idea if you reveal the team he was on
Unless he's banking a check every Friday for playing, he remains anonymous.
I will say that he's not at all unique among current players in his experience or assessments regarding the ups and downs of NCAA soccer.
@clotpoll, who the hell am I? Really? Didn't you see the info just below my name? I'm a D3soccer.com "All American" for heaven's sakes.
That said, I am relieved. You've arrived. Finally. The rest of us can now step aside and soak in your far superior expertise, and while you've already learned that many of us are indeed quite challenged, there is perhaps a small chance that a few of us may become more sophisticated and discerning soccer consumers with your assistance. Yes, we're pedestrian, to be generous, but don't give up so quickly. I think you would agree that changing the "culture" is no small feat and could take more than 3-4 posts. Hang in there and no doubt a bunch of us very soon will be better connoisseurs falling asleep at our kids' games right along with you. #patience #paceyourself
I'm impressed by how quickly you diagnosed that I am an "everybody deserves a medal" person. Well played. The "dead weight" was a nice touch, too. I wouldn't have been a huge fan of my kid continuing if he wasn't playing. As you indicated, the demands are high, and there are other lofty interests to pursue. Missing out on a double or triple major, internships and fascinating extra advanced lectures would be a shame if you're just riding pine, and especially if your presence as "dead weight" is just annoying the REAL players and the coaches. But here's the thing. I never heard my kid or even the true superstars on his little D3 team talk about teammates as "dead weight." Most of the time they actually were very disappointed when teammates got cut. And when some did get cut, the team still embraced those guys...even kept living with them if you can fathom that.
As for the all those demands, even for the 90 minute guys, why continue if it's not fun? I guess being "assassins" has some relevance in terms of answering that question, like high character guys will soldier on nobly and bravely, in the name of....what exactly? And after all, we are talking about D3, even with your kid. Why are these "assassins" bothering with D3 at all? And integrity to how the sport is supposed to be played is supposed to trump all? Even at D3? And the players who play in the World Cup don't value winning over style? Which year did that change? Which player told his coach that he was done playing for country because he just couldn't wrap his head around a few too many "long balls"?
I also never said D3 players are incapable of analyzing games in the way you suggest. I just haven't seen that being their main concern, especially right after a match. I'd be surprised to see a kid right after a win or loss going into an intellectualized Ian Darke mode, heading right up to the booth to wax critical and explain the details on how soccer as our founding fathers envisioned should be played.
We could also focus on content as well, like what you make of some of the most storied possession-style D3 programs also happening to be high substitution teams.
You're an idiot. Done with you.
I can tell this year will be fun with the heat index already very hot!!
I will address one point "Fun".
I will say this, soccer at the college level, atleast for me, was NOT fun.
It was very very tough competition, hard work, seemingly endless difficult practices that were much more physical than games (Since guys were trying to out do each other for playing time)
The fun comes when you are in your 30s and looking back, watching old tapes and having hours long conversations about your shared experiences going to war and taking on all comers together!
I try to tell my U10 and U12 players to enjoy this now, because the higher the level you play the fun is minimal and the work load is maximized.
Would like to hear other opinions on this, but I think the fun is looking back and appreciating the fact that you turned your body into a machine and made the most of your God given ability...
The fun comes from the journey:
Not playing more than 10 minutes per game freshman/sophomore year, but becoming the top scorer and an All American by Senior year..... That's the fun...
It just cannot be appreciated until the journey is completed and one looks back :)
Thanks, Saint. 100% correct. There is a long distance between fun and satisfaction in the game, and the casual US fan, player and parent cannot distinguish the difference.
Quote from: Clotpoll on July 01, 2017, 09:46:50 PM
You're an idiot. Done with you.
All right, all right...we can all take a step back and cool off.
(I am not trying to play the morality police, just want to ensure that we don't turn a molehill of a debate into a volcanic mountain. :) )
Saint of Old, I think some of the "heat" may involve some of us whistling past each other just a bit. I got lost somewhere between the ideas that D3 soccer is a joke and D3 soccer is super, super serious.
Don't think I introduced the word 'fun.' At any rate, perhaps overall enjoyment is a better word.
I certainly don't want to minimize what is involved at playing (and succeeding) at a very competitive D3 level. Many do underestimate the kind of fitness they need when they arrive, the competitiveness within teams and often thin margins between who gets to play and who doesn't, the stress of competing for spots and playing time, and the stress of the time demands amidst also very stressful academic demands. I vaguely recall an organic chem final preceded by a couple of sleepless nights just a couple of hours before a 6 hour bus trip to go try and beat Messiah in a NCAA game.
My point is no one is putting a gun to your head to play, especially at D3. One's access to college isn't supposed to be dependent on whether one plays or doesn't play, and very, very few go from D3 to making a living playing soccer. If, writ large, the experience isn't enjoyable and not rewarding, then why play? I think that goes beyond soccer.
Quote from: PaulNewman on July 02, 2017, 11:41:29 AM
Saint of Old, I think some of the "heat" may involve some of us whistling past each other just a bit. I got lost somewhere between the ideas that D3 soccer is a joke and D3 soccer is super, super serious.
Don't think I introduced the word 'fun.' At any rate, perhaps overall enjoyment is a better word.
I certainly don't want to minimize what is involved at playing (and succeeding) at a very competitive D3 level. Many do underestimate the kind of fitness they need when they arrive, the competitiveness within teams and often thin margins between who gets to play and who doesn't, the stress of competing for spots and playing time, and the stress of the time demands amidst also very stressful academic demands. I vaguely recall an organic chem final preceded by a couple of sleepless nights just a couple of hours before a 6 hour bus trip to go try and beat Messiah in a NCAA game.
My point is no one is putting a gun to your head to play, especially at D3. One's access to college isn't supposed to be dependent on whether one plays or doesn't play, and very, very few go from D3 to making a living playing soccer. If, writ large, the experience isn't enjoyable and not rewarding, then why play? I think that goes beyond soccer.
I think that's why you see such a high turnover in D3 soccer particularly once you get past the top 40-50 programs in the country. Kids have a distorted view that there going to get to campus and play right away, and when they realize the level of commitment and amount of work needed to earn time many drift to focusing on academics, or just enjoying college.
Exactly. This kind of player is the 'dead weight' to which I referred. That's not to cast aspersions on them as students or as friends...but on the pitch, that's what they are. They are a drag on any good team.
Quote from: Clotpoll on July 01, 2017, 09:46:50 PM
You're an idiot. Done with you.
Wow! Name-calling. There's no need to lurk for a while and then ease in with meek comments, but couldn't there be some middle ground between that and the in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway barrage? Some respect, cordiality, and humility would go a long way if you want to engage the other posters here in meaningful exchanges (conversations, discussions, debate and even disagreements), but so far it's hard to tell if you really want to talk WITH us or just AT us. But assuming it's the former, I can only say that's not the way many of your posts have come across, to me at least. Rather, in short-order, numerous of your posts have come across as know-it-all and condescending, sprinkled with generalized insults, insensitive remarks and now name-calling.
It's seems like you probably will have a lot to add to the conversations on this board and I'd like to say that I am looking forward to your contributions, insights, perspectives and opinions, but I'm wary that there's going to be too much attitude, arrogance and antagonism to sift through to get to the valuable stuff you have to offer. I hope you prove my reservations wrong and with those hopes I say "Welcome to the D3boards."
I've never seen anyone on these boards with more disdain for Divisiln 3 soccer then Clotpoll.
It comes across very bitter prentish, like his son should be playing at a super high level division 1 program and he's had to settle watching his son play Division 3.
College soccer is a mental and physical grind. Even more so today. The level is so much better then it was even 15 years ago. Organization and shape are so important (which isn't the most fun to train). With the rise in full time coaches comes the pressure to win on coaches, which in turn lands on the players. It takes a special kind of player and person to enjoy that grind, and in my experience those who embrace that and appreciate it will have real success, both as a player and well after they graduate.
Read closer. My issue is with US soccer in general, from kiddies to MLS. It's all garbage.
I'm not alone on this, nor are many of my takes original. Read what people like Eric Wynalda, Gary Kleiban, Ted Westervelt or Jon Townsend (a former NCAA player) have written. These Football Times, a publication aligned with The Guardian, also offers good and fair criticism of the US game.
I only offer some of my son's experiences here as an example of thoughts on playing in D3 that are shared by many who play with him and former club teammates of his who now play at other schools. I'm amused, but not at all surprised, that a couple of people here would rather attack the messenger than acknowledge the observations and concerns of players.
The US game, as opposed to the bromides constantly issued by US Soccer, is rapidly deteriorating. And, it's deteriorating all the way from the increasingly exclusive, pay2play enclaves of youth soccer all the way to MLS, which now resorts to falsifying attendance figures and using all sorts of PR tactics to divert attention away from TV ratings that are below dog shows.
If you don't think the US game is deteriorating, please explain the following:
1. Bob Bradley
2. USMNT results- all ages- when we play top competition (six World Cup wins since 1930)
3. A USSDA that sends 99.9% of its players into scholastic soccer (NCAA).
4. A pro first division that relies on a NFL-style 'draft' of scholastic players. Nowhere else on the planet is scholastic soccer considered adequate preparation for the pro game.
Now, think about the fact that all the issues we have as a soccer nation filter into all levels of the game...even NCAA D3. It's just not a pretty picture. What's even sadder is...it can be made better and made better fast.
Quote from: Clotpoll on July 03, 2017, 11:50:03 AM
Read closer. My issue is with US soccer in general, from kiddies to MLS. It's all garbage.
I'm not alone on this, nor are many of my takes original. Read what people like Eric Wynalda, Gary Kleiban, Ted Westervelt or Jon Townsend (a former NCAA player) have written. These Football Times, a publication aligned with The Guardian, also offers good and fair criticism of the US game.
I only offer some of my son's experiences here as an example of thoughts on playing in D3 that are shared by many who play with him and former club teammates of his who now play at other schools. I'm amused, but not at all surprised, that a couple of people here would rather attack the messenger than acknowledge the observations and concerns of players.
The US game, as opposed to the bromides constantly issued by US Soccer, is rapidly deteriorating. And, it's deteriorating all the way from the increasingly exclusive, pay2play enclaves of youth soccer all the way to MLS, which now resorts to falsifying attendance figures and using all sorts of PR tactics to divert attention away from TV ratings that are below dog shows.
If you don't think the US game is deteriorating, please explain the following:
1. Bob Bradley
2. USMNT results- all ages- when we play top competition (six World Cup wins since 1930)
3. A USSDA that sends 99.9% of its players into scholastic soccer (NCAA).
4. A pro first division that relies on a NFL-style 'draft' of scholastic players. Nowhere else on the planet is scholastic soccer considered adequate preparation for the pro game.
Now, think about the fact that all the issues we have as a soccer nation filter into all levels of the game...even NCAA D3. It's just not a pretty picture. What's even sadder is...it can be made better and made better fast.
Some of this seems seriously misinformed, though I do agree our youth system isn't doing as well as it should.
1) Speaking of Bob Bradley. He did fine as an MLS coach, national team coach in 2 countries, first division coach in Scandanavia and second division/first division coach in France. Did he fail with a Premiere League team? Yes he did. He's not the first and not the last to have that happen and Swansea stayed up by finding a manager that was better suited to them.
2) USMNT -- I think they've plateaued a bit since 2010, but you say 6 wins in history? Fine. I say qualified for the last 7 World Cups after missing for 40 years. We got blown out in 90, advanced at home luckily in 94, blown out in 98, advanced with a good draw in 2002, beaten in 06 in a group with the eventual champions, who only we took to overtime, won an easy group in 10, advanced out of a tough group in 14. We are on track to qualify again. There is steady progress here. It's just not fast and it's not going to be fast. But there is progress from the 70s/80s to today. None of this accounts for the winning of WC qualifying, our last appearance in the Confederations Cup, consistent competing and winning Gold Cups, and our last appearance in CONMEBOL's championship.
3) Where else is USSDA going to send them? In a country our size, we don't even have 30 full-time professional soccer teams. USL and NASL players usually need second jobs, let alone down the pyramid. All the other Western soccer playing nations have more full-time professional set ups than we do, as at least the first and second divisions are full-time let alone in England when it's full-time professional through the 4th or 5th tier. To keep these kids playing, the NCAA is the only choice. There aren't enough developmental academies, though at least MLS is on board and starting to do the right thing with the USL partnership. NASL is pretty much a dead league walking.
4) It's for an increasingly small minority of players. The best American players are increasingly coming from academies, though of course Jordan Morris and others still come through the NCAA. But how else to apportion them? A draft is something American's are familiar with and it works best with our non-relegation system so you don't end up with a handful of always dominant teams. I expect the Superdraft will keep dropping in importance, or at least the players coming through will be more USL development picks as the academies keep growing and improving.
US Soccer has come a long way. It has a long way still to go with a country this size. I don't like the NCAA rules and I've stated before they hinder development massively, but until MLS can make serious money, and even the minor leagues, it's the best hope we have for keeping the numbers playing until maturity.
Promotion & relegation addresses every issue we've touched on and puts every level of our game onto a better track the minute it's instituted. It also has to be mentioned that we've pursued a closed-league/franchise system in direct violation of FIFA statute for over 20 years, and it's more likely than not that the end is in sight. Australia was recently hit with an edict to conform to FIFA standard, and we're likely next (although US Soccer's corrupt influence on FIFA keeps our peculiar exception to statute alive).
It'll be good to have our game structured the same way it is in the rest of the world, if for no other reason than our qualities can be judged on an absolute, no excuses basis. We will either be 'good enough' or 'not good enough', and the qualifications, excuses, 'if onlys', 'need more time, money, patience, etc' constantly put out there by defenders of the status quo will be gone.
BTW, MLS isn't designed to 'make serious money'. It's designed to be a tax-loss carry forward to offset the profits generated by Soccer United Marketing, the entity into which each MLS franchisee buys with his entry fee (which is now $150mm). The actual teams are little more than hedges against owners' primary sporting interests. MLS openly declares- and has declared twice, in labor negotiations- that it has lost money every year since it began. TV ratings and live attendances have been in perpetual year-over-year decline, so it's not presumptuous to say that on its current trajectory, MLS will NEVER make money. It's also an acknowledged fact that the league's only revenue growth comes from the sale of new franchises. This is a common characteristic of Ponzi schemes, btw.
Yet...the current 'buy-in' sits at $150mm. Either the billionaires pursuing the (allegedly) last four franchises have taken leave of their senses...or they're fully aware that what they're REALLY buying into is the super-profitable Soccer United Marketing, an organization of dubious ethical & legal standing (a discussion of which I'll leave for another day).
Clotpoll, you keep getting further off-topic for this particular thread and for this board as a whole. I don't think there's any problem with soccer-related off-topics in clearly defined threads, but this topic of "Conference Playing Styles?" has clearly been hi-jacked.
By the way, nobody attacked the messenger (you) and in the give-and-take that's occurred, you've given more than you've taken, not to mention it's only you that resorted to name-calling. I have read your posts and I am aware that your criticisms and complaints extend beyond NCAA Division III soccer to soccer in the U.S. as a whole. What is not clear is why you chose to use this forum to assert that soccer in the U.S. is garbage, nor is it clear what your objective is in making such an assertion. I believe most, if not all, active participants on this board actually enjoy Division III soccer. We enjoy watching it, following it, discussing it--that's kind of why we come hang out here on this board. And we don't enjoy it because we are too naive, stupid, uneducated, or incompetent to realize and comprehend that it's not as good as the Champions League, La Liga, etc. That we are able to take it for what it is and enjoy it (often born initially from some personal connection to a D-III player and/or team) does not mean we don't have our own criticisms, complaints, and concerns about soccer in the U.S. as a whole and of Division III soccer specifically.
It's OK if you can't appreciate it for what it is and get enjoyment from it, but what are you trying to accomplish by coming here and calling it and all soccer in the U.S. garbage (and, in essence, saying that the thing that the rest of us are fans of and the thing around which this little "community" of ours here is based upon is garbage)? You say it can be made better and fast; is there some way in which you think we can help bring about that improvement? If there's something more you want than us to simply agree with you and commiserate with you and the plight of all the other disenfranchised players like your son, than please be more clear. If you want to discuss how the different NCAA-specific soccer rules are detrimental to the development of soccer in the U.S. and are open to a variety of perspectives and opinions, start a new semi off-topic discussion for this. If you want to discuss how soccer in the U.S. is different from that in most other parts of the world and how those differences hold us back, start a new off-topic discussion for this. Those are worthwhile discussions if we can all engage differing viewpoints with respect.
[Admittedly this perpetuates the hi-jacking of the thread; my apologies . . .]
I don't believe anyone thinks playing Division III soccer is all about having "fun" which in hindsight was the wrong word choice by Paul Newman. Enjoyment and fulfillment and satisfaction are probably more appropriate word choices and what Newman likely had in mind. The hard work, dedication, discipline and sacrifice that is required to maximize one's potential and what one brings to the table for the good of the team as a whole is certainly not always fun, but if there's no joy in it (regardless and independent of win & losses and team successes and individual honors), than it's time to look first inward and then outward to figure out what changes are needed to rectify that and just maybe it's time to move on to something else. If a student-athlete's voluntarily chosen set of priorities and pursuits are too overwhelming to be able to enjoy them, that's not healthy and pulling back in some area would be wise.
Sure, some teams, maybe many teams, have some players who would fit the category that you have labelled "dead weight". The stronger programs shouldn't and I doubt do have this problem, but coaches of weaker programs probably have no choice but to accept that their rosters will contain a certain percentage of players not fully invested. And that's got to be a tough spot for players to see teammates not fully invested. Obviously as a player who is all-in, you want to get to play on a team full of like-minded, like-dedicated players and if that's not the case for your son, that's unfortunate. I guess that he (and you) either didn't expect that of the program/school he chose or academics or some other consideration trumped the school selection. Any chance of transferring to a school and program that is a better fit for his/your expectations of the soccer experience?
The way a country coaches, selects players and organizes its game at the top has a direct effect upon lower levels of the game. Those at the top are the ones licensing coaches and determining best practices, rule changes, etc. The effect of US Soccer on the NCAA game is of heightened importance, since the NCAA itself absolutely loathes men's soccer. It's not 'revenue-producing', and the peculiarities unique to the sport make it hard to shoehorn into the traditional American format...especially when it comes to scheduling, as we are seeing with their resistance to the proposed full academic year schedule. And anyone who doesn't think the NCAA loathes men's soccer? Please explain the 9.9 Rule.
If I've hijacked this thread, I trust the moderator will block me and put me on notice. However, the topics I'm discussing are relevant to both D3 and the general playing style at this level.
If anything, it's amusing to see responses here that both mischaracterize my son, his motivation for playing and the insinuations, pulled from thin air, that he's somehow an aggrieved party claiming victimhood at the hands of his coach and the NCAA. Nothing could be further from the truth. A casual glancing of my posts will reveal he:
1. Never aspired to attend a D1 school.
2. Chose his school based 100% on academics and accepted its soccer situation warts and all, eyes wide open.
3. Is thrilled with his choice of school & is getting a great education.
4. Has no issues with any of his teammates and is close with them.
5. Has frustrations with the general style of NCAA play and the varying levels of commitment of some of his teammates.
6. Does not believe that the style of play associated with 'winning' soccer at this level is a representation of what the game should be.
It's also revealing that other than Saint of Old, no one has responded to any points I've brought up in this thread without answers wrapped in excuses, qualifiers, 'if onlys' and other cop-outs and modifiers. Some responses misquote me or ascribe attitudes to me and my son which we simply don't hold. Some responses are just indulgence in strawman argument.
And, from a coaching standpoint, I'll follow this up with a few simple ideas that can raise the quality of the D3 game. Again, if I've stumbled into a club of dads and/or former D3 players who just want to watch junior's team or alma mater rack up wins, I trust the moderator will inform me to move on. And my apologies if my lack of desire to watch D3- or NCAA soccer in general- has offended. But I'd also say that your harshest critics are the ones who don't even bother to engage on a forum like this...and they are both numerous and could be of great help in raising the quality across the entire NCAA.
We get it. We all know people like you. You despise US soccer at all levels, and you make arrogant comments about how easily you could fix it.
I don't think you are that caught off guard about how hostile everyone has been to you, I have a feeling this is the not the first time this has ever happened.
Quote from: Clotpoll on July 03, 2017, 06:19:28 PM
It's also revealing that other than Saint of Old, no one has responded to any points I've brought up in this thread without answers wrapped in excuses, qualifiers, 'if onlys' and other cop-outs and modifiers. Some responses misquote me or ascribe attitudes to me and my son which we simply don't hold. Some responses are just indulgence in strawman argument.
Yeah. That's the problem. It has nothing to do with an axe to grind and a desire to talk and not listen...
You get about 1/4 of it. What you don't mention is that among soccer-first fans in the US, folks on my side of the fence (plus the vast numbers that simply don't care) have you hugely outnumbered.
There are some of us who would like to contribute to the development of the game at this level. Would you prefer we just nod our heads and ingratiate ourselves to you? Informed critics should be the ones any business, academic or sports organizations should want to hear from if they're truly concerned with advancement. The NCAA's raving fans are raving fans...and that's ok. Just not a lot to be learned from that segment.
The 'fix', as you say, will not be easy. Then again, simple things always turn out to not be so easy. Here are a couple of ideas from the coaching end that could free up more time to work squads into a pass/possess mindset:
1. All conditioning is up to the player. No part of any practice will be devoted to any aspect of conditioning, other than measuring each player's baseline fitness the first session of preseason.
2. All ball control work is up to the player. No practice time will be devoted to touch, receiving on the proper foot, etc. No passing or control 'drills' whatsoever...your touch is grooved by day one, or it's not.
3. Two-a-day and three-a-day preseason sessions should be broken into defenders/6s only, attack/attacking mids only and gk sessions that stress footwork and distribution over saves. The first string GK works with defenders on playing out of the back. Any full team practices or infra team scrimmages should emphasize only building out of the back and creating/rehearsing patterns of attack. The ball does not leave the ground, under any circumstance.
4. Close to the season and into the season, all training moves to rondo-based work and directional rondos.
I'm not some NCAA fanatic. I absolutely recognize the flaws of the system.
Division 3 soccer is not about developing soccer players to play the beautiful game. For right or wrong it's about results. You can argue that's unfair but AD's aren't firing guys and taking away their livelihood cause coaches are playing too direct. They do it when you don't win. You can say that's wrong, but that is our current system so of course coaches operate within that.
At the division 3 level it is very difficult to recruit 18 guys who can play that have the athleticism to stand up to the best teams, but also have the technical ability to possess the ball and build from the back. With a 3 month season it's near impossible to develop guys technically enough If the base is not there.
Its great that you have this noble look at the game, but guess what? You wouldn't do any of this if you're livelihood depended on it. You would decide what would get you results, and you would compromise. Very easy to say that when you go to 18 games a year to watch your son play and have zero stake in the game otherwise other then being a fan. If you think you can fix this system, then maybe you should apply for the d3 jobs that open and contribute to the development of this game in some way other then mashing keys on a keyboard.
Quote from: Clotpoll on July 03, 2017, 08:43:44 PM
You get about 1/4 of it. What you don't mention is that among soccer-first fans in the US, folks on my side of the fence (plus the vast numbers that simply don't care) have you hugely outnumbered.
There are some of us who would like to contribute to the development of the game at this level. Would you prefer we just nod our heads and ingratiate ourselves to you? Informed critics should be the ones any business, academic or sports organizations should want to hear from if they're truly concerned with advancement. The NCAA's raving fans are raving fans...and that's ok. Just not a lot to be learned from that segment.
The 'fix', as you say, will not be easy. Then again, simple things always turn out to not be so easy. Here are a couple of ideas from the coaching end that could free up more time to work squads into a pass/possess mindset:
1. All conditioning is up to the player. No part of any practice will be devoted to any aspect of conditioning, other than measuring each player's baseline fitness the first session of preseason.
2. All ball control work is up to the player. No practice time will be devoted to touch, receiving on the proper foot, etc. No passing or control 'drills' whatsoever...your touch is grooved by day one, or it's not.
3. Two-a-day and three-a-day preseason sessions should be broken into defenders/6s only, attack/attacking mids only and gk sessions that stress footwork and distribution over saves. The first string GK works with defenders on playing out of the back. Any full team practices or infra team scrimmages should emphasize only building out of the back and creating/rehearsing patterns of attack. The ball does not leave the ground, under any circumstance.
4. Close to the season and into the season, all training moves to rondo-based work and directional rondos.
If you think you can run sessions like that and get results with a short preseason, training times that for most schools are available in one block outside of classes, etc, go ahead and try coaching a D3 team to win that way.
Everything you say sounds good in theory but again would probably only be possibly applicable to the top 5-10 percent of D3 teams.
Would you like to see some video of a high school girls team in rural CA that mastered what I'm talking about in under two years and won a state championship? Granted, some of those girls have more ability than your average D3 male player...😂
If we all agree that the biggest challenge to all but the top D3 players is limited time on the ball due to the breakneck pace and fresh defenses that close down fast, what better way to neutralize that disadvantage than to create extra space for such players?
Here's some fun video of that girls HS team in rural CA. Pass/possession soccer is simple...it's just not easy in the way that lazy, fearful D3 coaches like things to be.
https://youtu.be/mLuRBSdeUhM
Quote from: SoccerFan2017 on July 03, 2017, 10:23:14 PM
Everything you say sounds good in theory but again would probably only be possibly applicable to the top 5-10 percent of D3 teams.https://youtu.be/mLuRBSdeUhM
Would you think it would be broadly applicable in D3 if a team of 11 year olds- with three practices a week- can master this style of play (in less than two years) to the point that they can go toe-to-toe with Barcelona's academy?
No. It wouldn't be broadly applicable at all.
First, a U-11 team has an emphasis on developing players. You can forego short term results and not worry about being fired. Second, you play a good style with a good team you get your pick of the litter. College doesn't work that way (for instance your son chose a school academically before anything else). They also train for 11 months out of the year most likely. That's almost triple the days of training of a Division 3 program.
Comparing to high school girls soccer is absolutely hilarious. But I think that shows how out of your league you are when it goes past anything other then complaining about Division 3 soccer on an internet message board.
Quote from: luckylefty on July 03, 2017, 09:57:17 PM
Its great that you have this noble look at the game, but guess what? You wouldn't do any of this if you're livelihood depended on it. You would decide what would get you results, and you would compromise.
Jared Embick's livelihood depends on it, and he's doing just fine. And, were my livelihood to depend on it, I'd absolutely go 100% pass/posess soccer...if for no other reason than doing things 'the way things have always been done' leads to predictably poor results. If I'm going down, I'm going down by doing something that at least has a shot at breaking a trend of disastrous results.
What? You just referenced a Division 1 Head Coach at one of the most supported and recognizable soccer programs in the country to make your point? That has absolutely nothing to do with your point. To compare Akron to a Division 3 program is absurd.
I'm done. You aren't making any valid points anymore, just complaining about the system and acting like you can fix Division 3 soccer after watching your son play 18 games.
Quote from: luckylefty on July 03, 2017, 11:34:15 PM
No. It wouldn't be broadly applicable at all.
First, a U-11 team has an emphasis on developing players. You can forego short term results and not worry about being fired. Second, you play a good style with a good team you get your pick of the litter. College doesn't work that way (for instance your son chose a school academically before anything else).
Comparing to high school girls soccer is absolutely hilarious. But I think that shows how out of your league you are when it goes past anything other then complaining about Division 3 soccer on an internet message board.
Please send me some of what you're smoking. One of the biggest issues in US youth soccer is the OVEREMPHASIS on winning vs development at the U11 level...and younger. I've coached at lot at this level, and I can assure you that if you're a pass/possess coach, winning is the currency that allows you to continue in a seasonal progression of developing kids in your style. Any sustained run of losses opens the parents on your team to being courted by any number of coaches who get 'results' by playing scrumball. The dominant style of play in the NCAA game came directly out of the cutthroat world of youth soccer, and it represents the logical conclusion of this type of insanity.
If a girls HS soccer team in rural CA can successfully master pass/possess soccer, it obviates a lot of the built-in excuses against it that are now shibboleths of the men's D3 game.
Keep in mind that coaching programs like 3four3 have over 500 members now. And the coaches who are members are not paying for learning how to lose. There may well be some NCAA coaches in that group, and if not, it's likely there will be.
Quote from: luckylefty on July 03, 2017, 11:38:51 PM
What? You just referenced a Division 1 Head Coach at one of the most supported and recognizable soccer programs in the country to make your point? That has absolutely nothing to do with your point. To compare Akron to a Division 3 program is absurd.
I'm done. You aren't making any valid points anymore, just complaining about the system and acting like you can fix Division 3 soccer after watching your son play 18 games.
Dig deeper. Embick is not getting typical NCAA D1 'cream of the crop' athletic talent, and he faces enormous challenges in getting his players to play a thinking game that requires huge mental effort as well as a requirement that they learn the difference between problem-solving (the level of most NCAA soccer) and good decision making (higher level soccer). You can Google much of his take on these issues within his own team, as he's very open about it.
His recent teams, while very good, are vulnerable to physical, direct sides, and they often lose to teams who can overwhelm with athleticism, so I think his situation and experiences are directly applicable and of value to the D3 game.
So, there's plenty of feedback here that the things I've proposed simply won't work at the D3 level. I've also been invited to seek out a D3 coaching position, presumably to have my teeth kicked in by the jackboot of the cold, inexorable realities of the D3 game.
I'll continue to put forth ideas as we move toward the season, but in return, indulge me with your answers to the following:
You've secured a head coaching position at a D3 school. Academically, it's very good...although in the public eye, it's not an Ivy or NESCAC. There's plenty of funding in your budget to scout, recruit liberally and have one, maybe two, paid assistants. You've been hired because the previous coach has gotten the team to 'middle of the pack'...but can't get over the hump of getting a win vs the two big-time conference programs, much less a conference tournament or NCAA berth. 10-8, 'near miss', 'unlucky' seasons have become the team's calling card.
On the plus side, the quality of your school and the personality of the outgoing coach combined to bring in 6-8 recruits yearly, and the roster you're inheriting has plenty of good, fit, motivated, intelligent kids. None of them are individuals who can turn a game on their own, but they're a good, coachable unit willing to try anything to improve.
The athletic director has given you your marching orders in no uncertain terms: start by at least competing with the two programs at the top of the table, get to the conference tournament and get to the NCAA tournament within four years. You basically have a four year recruitment cycle to show what you can do with your handpicked players. If the results are good? Congratulations. You either get a raise and a new contract, or a program further up the food chain scoops up both you and your assistants.
If you miss the mark? You're fired, your assistants start looking for 'real' jobs, and you're looking for a DOC position in a second-tier youth club in god knows where.
How do you attack this challenge?
Isn't D3boards an online forum for discussing topics related to D3 college soccer? I visited and occasionally commented on the site about a half dozen years ago. I'm imagining that the vast majority of readers and commenters live in America and either played D3 college soccer or have/had one or more children who played D3 college soccer.
D3 colleges by definition are about academics first and foremost...and they generally regard sports as an extracurricular offering that add richness to the college ecosystem and personal development opportunities for student athletes. These programs simply aren't resourced or intended to be key feeder systems or skill development opportunities for aspiring professional and national team players.
For most parents and spectators, college sports are entertaining and engaging...regardless of the skill level of the players/teams. In the U.S., the highest level skill development is most appropriately left to the academies. That said, my anecdotal observations suggest that the general quality of D3 college soccer has improved over the past 10 years.
At the national team level, the USMNT does indeed make plenty of excuses...but there has been inexorable, albeit uneven improvement in skill and depth of talent over the past 30 years. Unfortunately, it is almost certainly our destiny that this progress will continue at an infuriatingly slow pace, particularly given the fact that young U.S. athletes can choose from a variety of sports...thus diluting the "talent pool".
Further, the majority of U.S. youth players still come from middle class "suburban" backgrounds, are usually expected to get a college education, and don't regard soccer as their only pathway to making a living. In Europe and South America, soccer (football) is a true street game and is often one of the only viable pathways to making real money, which creates a "hunger" factor that is unlikely ever to be replicated in this country.
Some D3 teams are committed to a system of play, other teams are committed to winning, and a few teams are committed to both.
The conversation on this string seems to be revolving around a possession oriented style of play versus more direct play within D3. The prevailing "feeling" seems to be that possession is far superior to more direct soccer. While I favor a possession style of play (within certain parameters), there is absolutely no evidence (NONE) that there is any statistically significant correlation between possession and winning soccer games. Did you just watch the Confederations Cup Final – Chile totally out-possessed Germany 66% to 34% and Chile lost 1-0 (hmm?). Also note this year's EPL champions, hardly considered a dominant possession team.
Famed soccer coach, Jose Mourinho, has said that those who favor beautiful football over a steely defense and lethal counter-attacking are "stupid". He has always favored substance over style.
Mourinho says..."What it is, is people who got some idea, some philosophy, and want to create something like 'We build very well from the back, we have a very good ball possession we don't play counter-attack.' But if you don't play counter-attack then it's because you are stupid. Counter-attack is a fantastic item of football, an ammunition that you have, and when you find your opponent unbalanced you have a fantastic moment to score a goal. So I think people are creating (illusions) and it has influenced public opinion. But football will never change. Football is to win."
Still further, across all levels of soccer (inclusive of D3) the median number of completed passes leading to goals is about 4, not 24 not 14...4! (see Soccer Analytics by Franks & Hughes).
So D3 coaches figure out what they have to do to win. For most, that is athletic, physical, more direct soccer. While I may or may not like it, it is a viable strategy and it can and does win D3 soccer games. It's part of the game and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
And I think we as a soccer culture have created a level of young players, particularly in the USDA (and other "high level" clubs) who have been told they are better then everyone else and that the only way to play is to win the possession game. These players only play on possession teams - against other possession teams – and they can become a bit coddled and soft. And when they get to the college game they have no idea what just hit them. Guess what...it was that big centerback who could care less about your possession game "pedigree". And they and their parents cry "foul" as they leave the pitch defeated...saying that wasn't a fair game...our opponent didn't play possession soccer. Well I suppose they do win the moral possession game victory. But on their record there is still an "L".
I think NJAC and NESCAC play a pretty direct style. It's physical, athletic and tough. But it works. I've said before that I'm not a real Tufts fan – mostly because I don't particularly like the "way" they play. But you certainly can't argue with their recent success.
On the other hand, you have teams like Messiah, (and a few others) who are totally committed to possession and have had significant long term success. So it can be done. But it takes total team commitment and buy-in. And an ENORMOUS amount of very specific coaching. And players have to be taught how to handle other more direct, physical teams. While it is difficult, I think teams like Messiah have proven that it's not easy, but it can be done.
So IMO both styles are very viable in D3 soccer. The key is for the coach to determine the style his team will play, and train his team to achieve success with that style. With good coaching and total team buy-in, either style can and does work...regardless of which style you may favor. In the end, even in D3 soccer...what really matters is substance over style.
Quote from: D3soccerwatcher on July 04, 2017, 06:12:04 PM
I've said before that I'm not a real Tufts fan – mostly because I don't particularly like the "way" they play. But you certainly can't argue with their recent success.
In my view, Tufts has played some really good possession-oriented stuff in the past five or so years. Certainly, they were hard to watch at times this past season, and were much more scrappy and direct than in years past – but I think that was due to a lack of "creative" personnel and Shapiro adjusting his tactics accordingly. And, as much as we might dislike it when coaches win ugly, particularly scrapping out the decisive result against a Calvin side who was much more adventurous and attack-minded, it is ultimately the pragmatic thing to do.
Two years before, when Tuts won the crown in '14, they did so with a possession style. Of course, then it was perhaps easier, as they had a CB (Williams) who was very good on the ball, Kayne and Pinheiro pulling the strings at CM, and Santos and Brown who were pacy, skillful forwards. Then, they had the personnel to do it, and so they did it. I also saw the Jumbos play in 2012, 2013, and 2015 – each year, they seemed to keep the ball on the ground the majority of the time.
This past year, their leading CB (Sullivan) was not skillful but instead physical, their midfield was led by Halliday who had been a sitting midfielder when Kayne and Pinheiro was around, and Majumder was the archetypal "target man" up front. Granted, the latter was injured for part of the season, and Becherano did a wonderful job picking up the slack, but I could see the difference in personnel of the two sides resulting in a significant difference in style.
A few thoughts and responses in review, as some things have been said that are just too outlandish not to counter...
The NESCAC generally is accepted as the top conference in D3 and certainly no worse than co-equal with one or two other leagues (UAA, NJAC). Coaches in the NESCAC have not been getting fired for producing middling results year after year. The only possible pressure out the door came at Colby and Bates. Both of those coaches enjoyed runs of 20-30+ years, and, if there indeed was pressure or any firings, they happened after those schools had numerous years in a row of middling and less than middling results. Coaches who have tended towards middle to low-middle of the pack in the NESCAC -- Wheeler at Wesleyan, Pilger at Trinity, Murphy at Conn -- have kept their jobs for a long time. I'm sure someone will quickly correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any other D3 conferences where average to losing seasons have resulted in loss of jobs specifically because of results or style of play. To my knowledge, D3 firings typically have involved some type of scandal or bad actions linked to a coach's behavior and/or loss of control of the program.
With the above said, it's hard to think that coaches at the D3 level aren't trying to win games and take programs to more winning ways. If they believe a possession-oriented style will aid that goal, and especially if they have the players to do well with that kind of system, they'll do that. They ARE NOT going to promote a possession style with no interest in results and just pure commitment to some aesthetic ideal. The players ALSO want to win. They don't come back the next year with no aspirations of a better record, post-season expectations, etc.
There's been a rather bizarre notion in this thread that challenging a poster means that those challenging have conceded that what the poster has concluded about us is true. The poster has suggested that we've made up things out of thin air, engaged in distortions and straw-manning, etc, but that cuts both ways. Online forums don't always handle nuance well. The truth is that I prefer a good possession-oriented, attractive style, as most here probably do. I do also like winning, as do many here. One of the most exciting times on this site is at tourney selection time, when a couple of the brightest posters on the site offer their predictions and analysis regarding selections. Just like in other sports like college bball, the NCAA tournament is a blast and the major focal point of the season Saying that doesn't mean that I or anyone else doesn't understand the place of D3 soccer in the overall soccer food chain. BTW, the NCAA doesn't "loathe" soccer. No other sport has a "season" that extends beyond a "season." All of us on the site also don't always agree. We have our disagreements, our instances of going too far, hard feelings, etc. This isn't our first rodeo and we certainly aren't monolithic.
I also get the argument about how more limited substitution might help the product on the field. Imagine, though, if D3 teams only played 13 or at most 14 kids with the first sub often not coming until the 60th minute or later. Without getting into another dissertation, I'll just say it's more complicated than just mimicking the pro rules. And just because one entertains other considerations doesn't mean one is incapable of appreciating any single consideration.
The poster suggested even a glancing look at what he said about his son would have yielded an understanding of multiple things, including that his son never desired a D1 and made a choice on academics first and foremost. He did not include in that summary that his kid "attracted zero interest from any program" (any division) and was offered a provisional spot at the school of his choice. That's very different from a superstar talent who is disappointed that his team can't play the kind of soccer he is so capable of. The sad thing about the ill feelings generated is that my own kid's story (limited recruitment, needing to prove himself, more skilled than athletic, etc) was extremely similar. As another aside, I don't agree that NESCACs and other prestigious D3s don't like kids from public school backgrounds. If anything, they want more of those kids (if they are smart and if they can play).
Flying Weasel basically is the or a moderator for the site. He extended a couple of olive branches executed with finesse that most of us would envy.
A close review of the "fun" faux pas revealed that I initially made a comment that "if you're not enjoying, then..." That was followed by the "who the hell are you" post with rhetorical questions about whether I would have "fun" dealing with x, y and z. That was when the word choice of "fun" first appeared...not from me.
Newman!!!
Some great points as always, I do think we all agree more than disagree.
I think it is really important to take the time and reading the posts to see that there are many astute observations that are made by former players/fans/etc... which is why this site is such a pleasure to visit for most of us.
d3 soccer has some sick players currently and I only see that getting better.
The D3 label I think is a bit of a problem, those that know soccer well understand that the top 25 or so programs in the country are playing some very good soccer and to be a contributing player one must be a straight up baller regardless of the style of play the team has.
Most of the guys who have competed know this as you either played on such a team or competed against them.
This is why I love it when programs rise (Tufts/Calvin/Haverford) are a few examples, because to get to that level takes hard work and years of toil to break through...
Back to the topic of conference playing styles... the great thing is that this will be an evolving argument because the game keeps evolving, that is the beauty of soccer.
Brazil 1970 won in a totally different way than Italy 2006, but they are both champions.
I love beautiful football, but what comes first and foremost is Winning. That is what History remembers.
The argument of which is the better style is for us football technocrats who live and breathe this stuff.
There is no doubt that West Germany 1990 was better than Holland 1974 because the Germans won!
I think the D3 scene is changing a bit, not sure who mentioned that coaches are now on a much shorter leash, but I think younger coaches are having a more practical mindset (Use the system the players you have is suited to), as opposed to launching 5 year projects and building a team philosophy even if it means taking a few lumps along the way(and you will).
Football is a very personal thing however, and I do think that those of us who coach inately refer back to our style of play in college when coaching.
I
Well I will say in the last 15 years or so the pressure to win has really amped up. This is because alums and parents are calling AD's and even Presidents to complain. This was unheard of 20 years ago. In Nescac alone in the last 15 years we have seen numerous coaches being ousted or "pushed out" for not winning. Purgavie at Bates, Serdgenian at Colby, Ferrigno at Tufts, Lessig at Conn College, Mighton at Trinity, Gooding's at Amherst. These coaches were all forced out and that is just in 1 league and in the last 10 or so years. Some of them were justified and others IMO were not.
I agree with you on the public v private school kids as the poster has no clue about admissions. I will say I have seen coaches not recruit some good players because of an overbearing parent. They just do not want to deal with parents that interfere.
Tufts in 2014 played some attractive futbol. Tufts in 2016 did not. Amherst and Middlebury do not play attractive futbol but they both won it all in the past 10 years. Williams and SLU always played attractive futbol and each school got there rings doing so but Williams and SLU have also come away with devastating losses in the NCAA's year after year playing attractive futbol. They lost to weaker teams doing it but they never changed which is commendable.
Messiah won a ton playing attractive futbol but they have struggled the past few years and I especially will be interested to see how they bounce back this year and if McCarty changes any which I doubt but still that fan base MUST be putting some pressure on him and his staff to start winning championships or at least getting deep into the NCAA's. When coaches are put under some pressure they can all react differently so that will be something to watch for.
The rise in pressure I think has come from two things
1. More colleges are shelling out full time salaries for programs, or in a very few cases multiple salaries, they want a return on that investment in regards to wins.
2. Many small private colleges are using Athletics to drive enrollment. In August when Rosters get posted look at the programs that did not have much success last year and only have a few incoming Freshmen, that is a warning sign that the coach is on the hot seat. It's one thing to lose, it's another to lose and not help the college with boosting it's enrollment.
Alot of it started when colleges about 10 years ago started getting written evaluations from players on their respective coaches. While indeed helpful if the player is being honest with himself and the situation they can also be incredibly damaging to the coaches reputation especially if the same comments year after year keep showing up. Players that are not playing or playing with limited minutes finally had a chance to vent their frustrations on paper to the AD. The surprising thing at the time to coaches were how serious the AD's and faculty that were evaluating the coach took this information up to and including termination. Like I said earlier some of the coaches I listed deserved to be axed but some did not.
I am a relative newbie to soccer, how do i tell what style is being played from watching online streams? Be gentle.
Quote from: NEPAFAN on July 05, 2017, 01:20:48 PM
I am a relative newbie to soccer, how do i tell what style is being played from watching online streams? Be gentle.
What a very good question. A lot is a measure of degree. A possession style is built from the back. The backs play up to the mids, the mids go wide or back to the backs, then passes are played, generally on the ground, through the defense layers of the opposition to find teammates open or moving into open space. It's generally patient, with strings of passes, probing to find openings.
A more direct style you will see backs and midfielders playing long balls over the top consistently. Not because the forward or overlapping player is open, but in the hopes that they can beat the defender to the ball for possession.
Very few teams play all one way or the other, so declaring a team possession or direct is often a matter for the eyes of the watcher. A single long ball or a single passing sequence leading to a goal does not tell you how a team plays. An entire season needs to be watched, as coaches often decide some opponents are more susceptible to direct play and will take a team that plays a larger possession style and directs them to go over the top for a game or two. Or vice versa.
If you get a chance, watch a couple Messiah games. That will give you an idea of very good possession soccer at the DIII level and then watch a few Amherst games and that will show you a contrasting and very good more direct style.
Good info, Mr.Right. My initial thought was that the pressure to win or at least attention to where programs are finishing (especially if there is a pattern) has been on the rise, but when I considered the past 7-8 years that I've paid attention I couldn't really come up with much beyond the Colby and Bates situations, where, for better or worse, those two coaches had very long tenures. Flaherty now has had 4-5 years on the job with not so good results and he hasn't been fired yet. I may have missed some over the past 5-6 years, but I'm also not aware of any that stand out from other conferences, and I don't recall posters referencing coaches getting fired because of results.
Great thread and topic! I think we are missing a huge factor which are the PLAYERS! Yes, the coaches can create the system, philosophy, tactics, system, culture, etc....but the players are the ones who control the actual game. Teams that play possession obviously recruit technical players with high IQ, and direct teams look for more athletic kids. I think the SLU's, Messiahs, OWU's, Williams have always been great possession teams because they usually have 3 or 4 players that are quality footballers that understand the game. Messiah with Geoff Pizon running the show, or DeMello with SLU. And the same goes with Amherst in terms of just absolute monsters that have decent skill. The top programs usually have those top players that can control a game, while the mid-tier d3 schools may have great players, but lack those tacticians that pull the strings.
For sure, it's a team game and really not a manager's game. One big difference in most levels of the US game, though, is that managers are effectively able to treat games as an extension of practice by taking advantage of small crowds to give lots of verbal direction. This is a big plus for lots of teams, as compressed windows of practice time really require that coaches get more involved during games.
Quote from: jknezek on July 05, 2017, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on July 05, 2017, 01:20:48 PM
I am a relative newbie to soccer, how do i tell what style is being played from watching online streams? Be gentle.
What a very good question. A lot is a measure of degree. A possession style is built from the back. The backs play up to the mids, the mids go wide or back to the backs, then passes are played, generally on the ground, through the defense layers of the opposition to find teammates open or moving into open space. It's generally patient, with strings of passes, probing to find openings.
A more direct style you will see backs and midfielders playing long balls over the top consistently. Not because the forward or overlapping player is open, but in the hopes that they can beat the defender to the ball for possession.
Very few teams play all one way or the other, so declaring a team possession or direct is often a matter for the eyes of the watcher. A single long ball or a single passing sequence leading to a goal does not tell you how a team plays. An entire season needs to be watched, as coaches often decide some opponents are more susceptible to direct play and will take a team that plays a larger possession style and directs them to go over the top for a game or two. Or vice versa.
If you get a chance, watch a couple Messiah games. That will give you an idea of very good possession soccer at the DIII level and then watch a few Amherst games and that will show you a contrasting and very good more direct style.
Thanks for the response. So in your opinion is one looked upon more favorably than the other?
Quote from: NEPAFAN on July 05, 2017, 04:33:30 PM
Thanks for the response. So in your opinion is one looked upon more favorably than the other?
Soccer is called "The Beautiful Game" and that refers to creative, possession soccer. There really isn't much beautiful about watching a team boot the ball down the field, have a couple of big fast forwards slam bodies around to get control, and try and sprint to a spot where they can take a shot. It is, however, effective. Especially given the NCAA rules. It's harder to generate the trust, ability, and flow of a possession game when teams can have unlimited substitutions and can only practice a certain number of times before season and then spend 2-4 days a week either playing a game or travelling to games.
Again, favorable is in the eyes of the beholder. The world likes Brazil's "jogo bonita" when they have the players, or the Dutch Total Football, or Spain's Tiki-Taka. No one thinks England or Italy play beautiful soccer very often, and Germany's "Die Machina" phase wasn't the prettiest, but they can get results.
I'd rather watch pretty soccer than boot and run. But I'd rather see my college team, MLS team, and national team win than lose, and if the player pool is better suited toward kick and run, or pack the bus and counterpunch, then that's what you do at that level. I'd pull my hair out watching my kids learn kick and run in their travel league as I prefer they learn the game, rather than simply get exercise, but I don't really care if my kids win or lose so long as they grow. That should hold true for all youth levels, but we American's are very tied to winning is good, so we take shortcuts in learning in all sports. Too many games, too little practice.
Overall, the answer to your question is.... it depends. Soccer cognoscenti definitely look down on more direct soccer, but at higher levels they want to see wins and you do what it takes.
My apologies in advance for the length of this post, but as with Kick-grass and others, I have really enjoyed this thread. The interesting and informative posts have been both entertaining and thought-provoking. Styles of play are often aspirational, subject to being foiled by the defensive capabilities of opposing teams. More than anything, styles of play give players a good idea of what to do, how to do it, and why they are doing it. I was particularly struck when I heard a D1 assistant coach say "We don't really have a style of play. We sort of take it from game-to-game." The player being recruited by that coach thought "Yikes!" and, not surprisingly, chose not to attend the coach's university.
Echoing the theme regarding coaches doing what they have to do to get the job done, I think that coaches are among the most practical people on the planet. The Donald Rumsfeld quote about going "to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have" comes to mind. Coaches can target the types of recruits they want, but they may (and often do) not land the ones they want. Either way, the games are scheduled and played. The Tufts example illustrates this point well, as Tufts 2014 and Tufts 2016 had styles of play that were built around the personnel available to Coach Shapiro.
I think that ideally, coaches like to have players (and corresponding game plans) that are sufficiently versatile to adapt to the demands placed on them by their opponents (particularly when they are not readily able to impose their will and preferred style of play on their opponents, which is what often happens in single elimination tournament contexts). As an aside, I have long believed that Amherst could thrive in whatever style they choose to play due to the high talent (and skill) level of their players in relation to their opposition. It's tough to argue with their results, but I would love to see what would happen if they mixed it up once in a while. I think that their style of play sometimes allows weaker opponents to stay in games they otherwise would not be competitive in.
I appreciated the posts about forces compelling D3 coaches to select styles of play that they perceive to make winning most likely. It appears that coaches in D3 are most on the "hot seat" when they are not winning, not contributing to the institution's admissions efforts, and not liked by the players. Mr. Right's comment about the written evaluations of coaches by players brings to mind an AD I knew well in the 90s. He was an early adopter of incorporating player feedback into the coach evaluation process. Whenever a coach received unfavorable feedback from more than 25% of the players, the coach was scrutinized more closely the following season and subject to termination if the numbers did not turn around.
The observations about the players having a big role in the style of play are spot-on. A team with 3 or 4 top players with the skill and the inclination to keep the ball on the ground and play through the midfield can dramatically alter a team's style of play (assuming, of course, that the coach is flexible and receptive to such a style of play and that decent results are achieved). Now more than ever, players can vet teams regarding their style of play (I loved the comment about every coach saying "we try to play possession") before applying to a given school. I know players who were of the mind that there are dozens of great schools that they potentially attend, but relatively few that had styles of play that suited them AND had coaches that were interested in them as players. As is often stated regarding the college search process, it's all about the match between the student and the institution. For some soccer players, "style of play" is part of determining the match.
Finally, it has not been my observation that DA and other top club players are inevitably "coddled and soft." Sure, many of these players may prefer a more possession-oriented style of play, but they are highly represented on D1 rosters, and D1 teams often do not play the possession-oriented style of play on which they were bred. There are some pretty big and strong center backs in D1 (many of whom were DA and top club players themselves), and DA and top club players who play in attacking positions seem to do alright on that level. Presumably, if style of play is that important to them, players of this sort choose college programs accordingly.
@ommadawn, nice post. But it is catch 22. Most players are invited to watch college games during the recruitment process and technical players can get turned off by long-ball/whatever style that can get the win approach because every player who is technical wants to play a good feet-2-feet passing game. Then they go elsewhere searching for that ideal team. So playing style matters to attract talent. I think.
I am really curious if perceived "playing style" really is a determining factor for a significant portion of D3 players.
Certainly if you are a very strong possession-type player and can land at a possession-oriented program (and also play), that sounds ideal, but given the range of factors that can go into choosing a school, especially at D3 where no athletic money is involved (and college as a soccer apprenticeship seems a little weird), I wonder if "playing style" ranks near the top as a determining factor. Now, as some have pointed out in the past, D3 covers a lot of territory and appeals to a lot of different types of kids and demographics. Those seeking the higher end academic D3s often are looking to get in the best school they can, followed by best school PLUS best school where they actually desire you to play soccer for them. I suppose if a kid is fortunate enough to have multiple dream D3 academic type D3s drooling after him then he might have the luxury of considering what "style of play" fits best. In that scenario, would "style of play" trump considerations about your sense of whether the coach is there for the long term, whether you like the other kids on the team, location like rural vs urban, academic offerings (e.g. liberal arts vs an engineering type school), etc, etc? Then there are kids (and families) who aren't caught up in the prestige of schools and don't care where they go as long as they have an ideal soccer experience, and so some may indeed make a decision based more heavily on just wanting to play soccer. Again, though, the coach has to want you and most still want to figure out if they will be reasonably happy with the whole experience (including issues like location noted above and perhaps costs as well). Then there are kids seeking mission-oriented schools.
Then of course there is the question about what one values. I personally have a hard time understanding kids who transfer multiple times at the D3 level and/or who will take 5 or even 6 years to exhaust all of their eligibility. And, btw, when that happens, I wonder how much "style of play" figures in. For example, does a kid decide he clicks with coach that runs a hybrid style or a coach who runs more pure possession but who has a personality that isn't so hot?
In my experience, kids wants to play. Most kids I know would rather feel like they are solidly in the mix in terms of contributing (or at least can anticipate that happening within 1-2 years) vs sitting on the bench while the team plays a style one likes. The power dynamics are such that I just don't know how often kids are in a position to be holding all the cards, so to speak, and getting to make playing style one of their final determining factors. I would think, for those who make soccer in general a major deciding factor in college choice, that the issue of "Am I going to get to actually play?" tends to win the day.
Speaking of the breadth of D3, I was looking at websites of CUNYAC schools last night. Appear to be very diverse with a lot of international flavor. Would love to see someone knowledgeable tell us more about schools in conferences like the CUNYAC that garner less attention than others.
Playing style certainly plays into kids choices. I've recruited kids that mentioned that multiple times. In my experience it was far down the list but it definitely mattered. The NESCAC for instance is very direct, yet players still commit there. Why?
Cause they will get an unbelievable education. Style of play matters just not more then the other stuff.
I think when kids transfer multiple times, or take multiple years that has typically very little to do with the school and more to do with the kid. Either they leave because they don't have the role they (or their parents) envisioned on the team, or they fell out of favor with coaches because of personality conflicts.
You would be really surprised how little the opportunity to actually step on the field comes up in the process. The reason? Most of them think they are good enough to step in and play right away, which is probably natural for a 17 year old kid.
A really interesting school that nobody knows much about is Morrisville State. They play really attractive soccer, build everything through the back (I mean everything). They don't play in a good conference, so they fly under the radar a bit, but they are a solid enjoyable team to watch.
The CUNYAC has a reputation of being one of the weakest conferences in D3. The AQ from that league usually gets matched up with one of the top seeds in the NCAA tournament. They usually get smacked 5-0 or 6-1 or worse! In my experience watching this league from a distance you are correct that these teams have some incredible international flavor on their rosters but they are usually one of the more unorganized sides in D3. The coaches are all part time as are for that matter the players but they do have some skill on these sides they are just horrific in terms of coaching and organization.
The funny thing is Nescac before 2000 used to be a pretty balanced league in terms of style of play. Some teams would whack and others would try to play. When Ainscough took over Bowdoin in 2000 things began to turn for the worst. He played very direct and forced other sides to do the same to compete. Middlebury under Saward were very chippy and direct. Russo at Williams had the talent to stay in their possession style throughout all these years. Ferrigno was direct at Tufts and the Gooding's at Amherst were hybrid as they had some talent. When Serpone joined at Amherst in 2007 the league got ugly in style of play. The focus turned to height, speed, athleticism and very direct play. This has not changed in the past 10 years or so. Williams always stayed possession oriented and a couple of Colby sides with Oostergaard as assistant coach would really build out of the back with very short passes that other teams would high press them to death and they would get burned b/c they just did not have the talent and skill at very position to make it work. BUT they attempted it and I commend Colby for that. Interestingly, Oostergaurd is now at University of New England where he plays the same style w/o much success so far but it makes you root for these teams to succeed
You may commend Williams and Colby for their style, but both of those coaches have to be under some pressure. Given Williams' competition in all things with Amherst, you have to believe there is pressure to do better (make the tournament) there. Colby has gone from challenging Bowdoin as the #1 destination in Maine for a male soccer player to dropping down to fend off Bates for the #2 spot. Sounds like Williams brought in a good recruiting class, and the word is that the coach was proceeding with greater urgency in recruiting given recent results. Not sure about about Colby- no evidence of an increase in urgency there.
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.
Are we overselling this idea of coaches under pressure? How many instances of a coach being let go for poor team performance can you guys recall?
One of my sons played in the NESCAC and the other in the Ivy League. My anecdotal observation is that, although there is some pressure on coaches to perform and garner wins, there is generally a more important expectation that the coach connect with the players and provide mentoring and an environment for personal development.
Sometimes for better but often for worse, today's college athletes have more frequent and direct input into the athletic administration regarding their experiences with and feelings for the coach. Athletic administrators are operating in an increasingly "PC" environment at private liberal arts colleges and are thus quicker than ever to pull the trigger and fire a coach if the player feedback is negative.
I've seen many instances where a coach who is a good mentor and is supportive of the players can last a long time in a program with a middling record, while a coach who gets wins but generates discord and/or animosity won't last long.
Regarding a high school player's preference for style of play in college, I'm guessing that the perceived importance of style of play varies with the academic quality of the D3 institution the player is aspiring to. Players who are strong academically are likely to rank style of play lower on their list than players who view college as an opportunity to play soccer first and are worried about the quality of academics second.
Quote from: Dog Face on July 06, 2017, 01:13:30 PM
You may commend Williams and Colby for their style, but both of those coaches have to be under some pressure. Given Williams' competition in all things with Amherst, you have to believe there is pressure to do better (make the tournament) there. Colby has gone from challenging Bowdoin as the #1 destination in Maine for a male soccer player to dropping down to fend off Bates for the #2 spot. Sounds like Williams brought in a good recruiting class, and the word is that the coach was proceeding with greater urgency in recruiting given recent results. Not sure about about Colby- no evidence of an increase in urgency there.
This is absolutely not accurate. Sullivan took over for Russo in 2015. While I AM frustrated with Williams lack of success since 2013 Sullivan will be safe at Williams for a long time. When I talk about pressure I am talking over a 10-15 year time period. Coaches in Nescac that have been let go the past 10 years were all at their respective schools for over 25 years before being "pushed" out. My main concern at Williams is that Sullivan starts getting frustrated with not keeping up with Amherst and Tufts and decides to change Williams' style of play. I commend him for keeping Williams' playing some possession futbol with a super counterattack like it was under Russo. I would be most disappointed if Williams starts looking like Amherst. However, I am sure they will not.
Seabrook has only been at Colby 4 years. He took over a program that was really struggling and got them in the Nescac tournament 1 year. While I do not agree with his hiring he will be safe at Colby for a while. D3 coaches get a lot more leeway than D1coaches in terms of time. However, even D1 coaches can get a lot of leeway if the school does not care about soccer. Great example is Boston College.
Amazingly, more than a few D3 firings occur when part-time coaches refuse the offer to become full-time. They have lucrative teaching, ODP, DA or club DOC gigs and don't want to give them up.
Quote from: NEPAFAN on July 06, 2017, 01:49:01 PM
Are we overselling this idea of coaches under pressure? How many instances of a coach being let go for poor team performance can you guys recall?
I know of 2 in the Mid-Atlantic alone within the past year.
I would agree with whoever said it's important there isn't discord etc, but as you could imagine the discord comes quickly when a team of 18-22 year old competitive men is consistently losing.
Quote from: luckylefty on July 06, 2017, 06:51:23 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on July 06, 2017, 01:49:01 PM
Are we overselling this idea of coaches under pressure? How many instances of a coach being let go for poor team performance can you guys recall?
I know of 2 in the Mid-Atlantic alone within the past year.
I would agree with whoever said it's important there isn't discord etc, but as you could imagine the discord comes quickly when a team of 18-22 year old competitive men is consistently losing.
Just curious what coaches would they be that were let go in the Mid Atlantic in the last 2 years due to on field performance?
Delaware Valley and Ursinus. Delaware Valley might have been a "resignation" but their record in the Conference from 2013 on is 1-27.
Quote from: luckylefty on July 06, 2017, 08:32:28 PM
Delaware Valley and Ursinus. Delaware Valley might have been a "resignation" but their record in the Conference from 2013 on is 1-27.
Neither is known for winning so wouldn't surprise me if Del Val coach just left on his own, they only won 1-2 total conference games in the 2009-2012 period too. But agreed in the sense that coaches can be fired or on the hot seat if they can't be competitive every few years in the conference - no athletics program (regardless of whether or not soccer is a priority for the school) wants to see consistent 2-16 records or last place conference finishes.
Quote from: truenorth on July 06, 2017, 02:09:15 PM
Regarding a high school player's preference for style of play in college, I'm guessing that the perceived importance of style of play varies with the academic quality of the D3 institution the player is aspiring to. Players who are strong academically are likely to rank style of play lower on their list than players who view college as an opportunity to play soccer first and are worried about the quality of academics second.
Looking back on when I was a high school junior/senior looking at colleges I think this is likely true. I was a decent player - club/HS team captain, all conference player - and I'll call myself a "cerebral" player. I liked to analyze styles and think strategy. I fit in very well on teams that played possession-oriented ball. But I also was a HS valedictorian who liked music. I was recruited by two schools, Macalester and Luther, who were at the time probably the two best sides in the North region. I liked both but I didn't care what style they played. That wasn't even on my radar. I was thinking about other things. I wanted to play for a coach I liked. I wanted to play on a successful team with players I liked. I wanted a good financial aid package. I wanted to keep playing music. I wanted a beautiful campus. I wanted a good science program. I chose Luther, but not for soccer because I hated the way the coach talked to me when he'd call on the phone. I didn't even end up playing there because there were other things I wanted to do. While I had played with many of the players on the team who would go on to be all conference, all-region players and they played a style that would have worked for me I'd watch the games from the stands with no regrets.
Now I watch the Loras team regularly. They have been one of the most successful sides in D3 in the last decade, and after an "off" year last year I expect that this year they have a team that can go deep again as their talented freshmen will have a year of experience. They are regularly derided here for their overly direct style, and I largely agree that they can be incredibly frustrating to watch. I happened to be in Peru a few weeks ago and had dinner with a former player (who was from Peru) who also agreed. But the players love the team, they love being successful and so the style itself is secondary to those things. I think Rothert plays direct with high pressure because it just plain works at this level. There have been some incredibly skilled players (I think first of Kevin Cavers but there are plenty of others) who have played there and been successful. Would I have liked playing that style? It wouldn't have been ideal but I would have enjoyed being part of that type of program and that level of success, that's for sure.
Dubuquer, +K. That is a great post. Sure, kids might have preferences and styles that suit them better than others, but for most, including really smart ones, that ranks pretty far down, and, like you put it, isn't even "on the radar" except perhaps in hindsight. The personality of the coach, the vibe of the team and how you don't or do fit in with the guys, and whether you'll get the nerve to speak to that really cute young woman in your freshmen philosophy course are far more important.
I also give a ton of credit to you Midwesterners. My first thought, and I bet a first thought for many Northeast/New England snobs like me is how you passed on Macalester. Still angry with my daughter that she didn't pick Macalester!
As a fellow New Englander, I'd agree with your assessment PaulNewman. I'm friends with a couple who have 4 very smart daughters. None of them played soccer in college, but the oldest went to Barnard, the middle two to Colby and Hamilton, and the youngest to Macalester. She had a great experience there, ran cross country and track, and is now in medical school at Tulane.
Quote from: truenorth on July 10, 2017, 02:31:30 PM
As a fellow New Englander, I'd agree with your assessment PaulNewman. I'm friends with a couple who have 4 very smart daughters. None of them played soccer in college, but the oldest went to Barnard, the middle two to Colby and Hamilton, and the youngest to Macalester. She had a great experience there, ran cross country and track, and is now in medical school at Tulane.
One of my biggest disappointments during the college search periods was failing to get any of my kids to even visit Grinnell! Will have to put that burden on the grandkids if I'm still kickin'!
Quote from: PaulNewman on July 10, 2017, 01:43:24 PM
I also give a ton of credit to you Midwesterners. My first thought, and I bet a first thought for many Northeast/New England snobs like me is how you passed on Macalester. Still angry with my daughter that she didn't pick Macalester!
I wasn't a rebellious teenager but I did rebel against the expectation that I would go to an "elite" school. I had HS friends go to Middlebury, NYU, WashU, Macalester, Carleton, Stanford, Grinnell, Cornell, Columbia, Brown, Brandeis, Hopkins, Duke and probably plenty more I can't remember. I probably could have gone to those places but I didn't want to. Every so often I have a tinge of regret I didn't choose Mac, but I quite like how life has turned out and loved Luther. Looking back and watching the Loras team I do get occasional regrets now about not playing soccer in college, but c'est la vie.
Paul Newman -- Grinnell is a wonderful school, I managed to get both my kids there, and one went so far as to get recruited, but could not get his ACT score to the mandatory range and so had to pass on that opportunity. Too soon to contemplate grandchildren, but I will always have a soft spot for Grinnell.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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....