With the quality of college womens soccer coaching being such an interesting topic here is a new thread to express your thoughts. I for one see two styles of coaching womens soccer. One style being run and gun and the other being possession. The Japanese World Cup team plays possession style while the U.S. plays run and gun for the most part. What style is most prevelant among the top 25 colleges ? Are club coaches to blame for the style of play in college ? Should college coaches be teaching basics or recruiting their style of play ?
The real point here is that the current substitution rules have an affect to the quality and style of play in the college game. The current rule allows for "fresh legs" to continually enter the match which allows and encourages the "run and gun" style. U.S. soccer, NSCAA, NCAA, etc. must all realize that until we have a consistent set of rules, in regards to substitution, that our National teams will continue to suffer because of it. Just my opinion.
College soccer coaching: Fact - the level is not very good Why? 99% of administrators do not care about the quality of soccer on show...they couldn't care less what formation or style the team plays...they don't understand the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 3-4-3. They pay the coach to (a) develop student-athletes as people - get good grades/do community service, etc, (b) win games - or at least don't consistently come last, and (c) don't cheat and drag the department into an NCAA violation. So the motivation for college coaches is not there to develop a "Japanese" style of game...it takes too long and has no guarantee of success... Another BIG reason for the lack of nuanced coaching is the overly liberal substitution rules in college soccer...with fresh legs always on the field, you don't teach players to solve problems on the field with tactical subtlety. you just replace them with a faster fitter runner. Of course these are huge generalizations but I have been involved with collegiate soccer for over 25 years and have not seen the level of coaching rise at the same rate as the athleticism of the players. Things have to change at the youth level before any kind of serious change will be made at the collegiate level. Now back to Swansea vs. QPR game on Fox!
One must ask thou, if the college game goes to only 3 subs per game, wouldnt that make the NCAA cut back on scholarships??
Why would that have an impact on scholarships? 3 subs = 14 players which is the number of scholarships available now at D1 level. You could still have as many players as you want on the bench. Most teams don't use more than 18 players in a game anyway... What is the ratio scholarships to players actually used in football?
I have always had a question about this "quality of coaching" issue as it has repeatedly come up in recent years. If we but assume that the coaching population is reasonably intelligent, WHAT do those railing about "kick and run" or "possession soccer" perceive that the (college and club) coaches are THINKING about this issue? Coaches have seen the arguments, they have been to countless seminars and training sessions where the topics have been laid out in great detail. They have been preached at for decades about getting with the program. Textbooks have been written about soccer theory. When I was actively coaching 20 years ago, "possession soccer" was preached from every corner. (It was called by different names, "the passing game", "building offensive pressure", "ball control" or whatever, we all knew exactly what the objective was.) Again and again the trainers made the case, showed us the films (of Brazil, Spain, Argentina, or whomever, and talked endlessly of coaching strategies to teach this marvelous soccer strategy to our players. So when fans get up on their high horse (such as on Big Soccer) and complain self righteously that American soccer is doomed because too many coaches don't know any better than to teach "kick and run", these fans' ignorance boggles the imagination. It's just not that simple. I don't know that any coach would say "Gee, for decades I've seen all of this stuff on "possession soccer" but because I'm too stupid to understand any of what I've been taught (both as a player and a coach), I think that I'll cater to fast players and just stick with a simplistic "kick and run" game because that is how it was done in the 1940s in America." Can we not start to look carefully at what the underlying issues might be and stop insulting coaches? (The substitution rules might be a place to start. Also, acknowledging that long direct passes as also a legitimate part of the game.)
College coaches, to a certain extent, have to deal with the skill level of players that are available...it is debatable how much players will develop once they have reached college age...not saying that they don't develop, but technical skills are probably not going to be the area where they develop most. I am going to speak in generalizations, even though I understand that there are exceptions/outliers to the rule. In GENERAL, the technical level of women's soccer players who play defense is at a level where it makes sense to put high pressure on them so that they make a technical mistake. This can have at least 2 effects: 1. the defenders feel the pressure so play a long pass instead of a short pass because they don't want to lose possession in the back 2. the team who is pressuring decide to play a longer passing game in order to put the opposition defenders under more pressure Now, you can call this "kick and run" if you like, but coaches aren't stupid and they want to win. A sure fire way of losing in women's soccer is to try and play like Barcelona out of the back... We all have this idealized way of playing "possession" soccer, but unfortunately we don't have a big enough pool of players nationwide to allow this style to work. In women's college soccer, with 2 fairly equal teams, you are rewarded for putting teams under high pressure. And this has a direct effect on the team's style of play.
Dead-On. Absolutely correct. Good insight. Anson Dorrance figured this out 30 years ago. And he is also on record many times as praising the possession game, and would like to move that direction as much as anyone. Remember the Stanford - Carolina games in 2009 and 2010? In both games, late in the contests (when behind and tied) Stanford was blasting long balls forward with the best of them. But when Stanford out matches their competition, they play a very pretty brand of soccer (as does UNC and all of the rest the upper level teams.) We are yet in transition.
Why would you want the college game to go to 3 subs per 90 minutes? These aren't pros that are already developed. These are 18-20 year old women who need game action in addition to training. You want a kid to go from high school to sitting on a bench for 3 years to playing one year and think that will make them better for the USNT? I get the points everyone is making - play real soccer over kick ball - but changing to the international substitution rule isn't the direction I would want to see amateur college soccer to go, especially considering 95% of these kids aren't pursuing a career in the WPS or overseas.
If you had only 3 subs per game, it is likely that rosters would not be so big...the average size of women's soccer college rosters is currently around 27.5 I believe (read this on a recent college softball study about scholarship opportunities). Maybe the roster size would shrink to about 22? 20? What effect would this have? Well the talent level would spread out for sure. There would be a trickle down effect so the the overall level of women's soccer would be better. Players in general would get QUALITY playing time (not just 10 minutes at the end of the game when the team is up 3-0). The competition in training would be higher - since players are now not guaranteed to play their 15-20 minutes per game. Keep unlimited subs for D3 programs if you want. This unlimited substitution smacks of a recreational mentality. I think we are doing athletes an injustice by allowing them all to play and not teaching them that it is a competitive world out there.
I see there is a stat on roster size, but is there one for how many players actually play in a game? My guess it would be in the mid to upper teens - so not far off of the 14 max in a game with the 3 sub role (the difference is the in-out-in-out capabilities). The assumption is that reducing the rosters from 27 down to 22 would improve overall soccer quality, but not sure I see that. The reduction would come from arguably the 5 weakest players - improving overall soccer quality would come from spreading out the talent (IMO) not from eliminating the bottom end.
I see what you are saying with the lack of improving overall quality... I guess my point is that some very good players end up sitting on the bench because they are freshmen and there are better, older players ahead of them, but if they were given a chance to play as freshmen the overall level would be better. Also if there are 320 D1 teams x 27.5 = 8,800 players. 320 x 20 players = 6,400 players It would stand to reason that the average level of the 6,400 would be better than the 8,800? Those 2,400 players would probably filter down to D2 and D3 which in turn would make those programs stronger on average. My big thing is that we as coaches are able to solve our problems on the field by making unlimited substitutions. We are not allowing the players to learn how to solve their own problems on the field.
The NCAA will never go for 3 subs/game because they want for everyone to be able to participate. I think the more realistic compromise would be unlimited subs, but once you leave the field, you are done for the entire match. No re-entry! Then the NCAA can have their participation and coaches would seriously consider who they take off and when they take them off. Not ideal, but this is college soccer, it never will be.
This idea is one I can support better than the 3 subs. I actually like it alot. It still takes into account coaching because once your player leaves, they are gone for good. No rest breaks. You need to be strategic. The other notion that cutting the subs will result in smaller roster sizes and a spreading of talent I think is a little off base. First, roster sizes are the way they are primarily due to Title IX. It's less of a headache for administrations to use roster size as their compliance of it instead of any of the other factors. I see it in lots of places, especially in equestrian. Second, even with a smaller number of subs, you'd still have that top tier going to the same programs - "if I'm as good as I should be or aspire to be, I'll earn playing time at the top programs" - and a roster of 20 national team caliber kids will still be proportionately better (over the long haul of the season) than a roster of 20 great kids because both schools are still limited to the same substitution rule. Spreading out the second tier across the country (the kids playing 10 minutes per game at the top schools now) won't change anything if they're all playing the same 90 minutes that the top tier is playing. ie: if you limit Stanford to 14 players and Texas A&M to 14 players, Stanford is still going to win that match 9 times out of 10 even though A&M has great talent. And the term "unlimited subs" is a little misleading but I guess we don't have any other name for what the rule really is.
No, roster sizes are a function of what other sources of funding for tuition are available besides athletic scholarships. State schools and schools that have large endowments and give large academic or needs grants, or can grant in-state tuition to out of state athletes! will have larger rosters.
Roster sizes can also be affected by the name draw of the school, especially, as CW notes, state schools. So you may see a decent player walk on at the big state school while passing up athletic scholarship money at a smaller, "non brand name" school just so they can say they go to/play at the big name school.
As a step in the right direction, I would take the no re-entry in either half. This would demand much more coaching and the game would be less frenetic. The players would learn to pace themselves. Let's assume you have 22 players on your roster. Let's assume that you don't sub the keeper half way through a half. That gives you 10 opportunities to sub in the first half and 30 in the second. If you had a balanced squad and wanted to waste time, you could make that 2nd 1/2 REALLY short in terms of the amount of time the ball is on the field. The problem is that for some reason the NCAA will not allow federated rules (i.e. different rules for D1, D2 and D3) so therefore D3 will never accept the limited substitution rules.
Not the first, or probably last, time this issue has come up … https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36987&page=3 from March of 2003
How many subs does it give you if you have 38 players on your roster? What has stopped mass substitution as a delaying tactic is stopping the clock if the team that's ahead does it. The NCAA has different rules by division and by gender now in basketball. D1 has the restricted area arc in basketball, D2 and D3 reverted to the "directly under the basket" rule until they decide whether they will implement the arc. They haven't voted on it yet, though the original announcements just referred to a one year delay. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/...l+approves+restricted+area+arc+for+division+i And the 3 point line has varied by gender and division for decades, as has the dunk rule( for you younger folks, it was known as the Alcindor rule. It never existed in the college division). The 10 second line, the 5 second rule, and others have been treated differently by division and gender also. I believe the implementation of instant replay is different across divisions also.
Limiting subs will an IMHO and effect that will value a different type of player. The game would have to slow down and the smarter more technical player will gain the advantage over the run like a chicken player. The college game passes on a lot of great players because they a supposedly not athletically gifted enough. The assumption that the top player characteristics of today's top players may not be the same of the one we see today. Players like Sydney Leroux with limited soccer skill but plenty of athletisism might not be the type of player colleges will target.
From the UCLA web site … Sydney Leroux One of the most dangerous forwards in the world at the U-20 level ... The USA's most capped player and highest scorer at the U-20 level ... Has scored 30 U-20 goals in 36 total international games ... A member of the U.S. team that won the 2010 CONACAF U-20 Women's Championships in Guatemala I’m not sure what Sydney did to you or yours but it sounds like she can play a little bit … are we talking about the same player?
Found this on NCAA Federated Rules... This letter is from 2002 but I believe it still stands... http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArc...s+decision+deserves+a+red+card+-+4-15-02.html Editor's note: Although neither of the preceding letters discusses the possibility of division-specific playing rules, erroneous information in that regard has been circulated in the soccer community. NCAA Bylaw 21.2.1.3 specifies that federated playing rules are not permitted. Thus, any change to playing rules must apply to all three divisions. ... "21.2.1.3 Duties. Subject to the final authority of the Executive Committee Playing Rules Oversight Panel, each rules committee shall establish and maintain rules of play in its sport consistent with the sound traditions of the sport and of such character as to ensure good sportsmanship and safe participation by the competitors. These playing rules shall be common for all divisions of the Association, and differences among the divisions shall not be permitted, except for the division-specific playing regulations developed to address significant financial impact and approved by the divisions and the Executive Committee Playing Rules Oversight Panel. Playing rules committees shall have the authority to permit rules experimentation in the nontraditional season without the Playing Rules Oversight Panel approval. Experimentation in the regular season shall be subject to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel review.
That's cool, but as basketball shows, interpretation of that rule flexible. So.. D1 and women play to one rule, D2 &D3 men play to a different rule.
Yep same player. Have you watched her play?.........My 10 year old has better foot skills but she is a hell of an athlete.