several do. the problem is people stop thinking they are top players. it becomes self fulfilling that if Jane goes to UNC et al, she is an elite player. There are many factors that go into players decisions. Soccer may be more or less important in that decision. I told my kid that her Club choices should be consistent with her College ambition. If she wanted to be good enough to play at the best Colleges, then she needed to focus on that. For her that meant going to a Club that wanted to help her get better as opposed to one that would have simply used her existing strengths to win games. Once you get to College, the same applies. The difference is as stated, most dont have aspirations beyond College and the chance to be part of a storied program that wins titles is what they want, even if it means less time on the field.
Hmm.... maybee She saved 3 out of six kicks from the mark taken at her this weekend. She can strut around like Oliver Kahn.
Your logic that "soccer isn't the end all, be all for a majority of players".. actually supports the argument that more talented players should consider more universities (other than the those with the top 5 WSOC programs). And it's a very good argument, that hopefully is endorsed by parents of these athletes. If the parents help the player see the larger picture involved in selecting which university/college to commit to, the player is more likely to be satisfied with their overall experience (both as an athlete and as a college student). Size of campus/enrollment, availability of majors, quality of education, option to study abroad, amount of travel required for that conference, style of play, etc etc etc.. I see more parity developing in WSOC, with an increase in the number of programs that have a good shot at playing in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. That's a big improvement over what we had just 10 years ago. This gives athletes more options to play competitive soccer, with strong programs to choose from in each of the P5 and also in some Mid Majors.
3 of seven kicks, the semi-final vs. UCLA freshman; final - UNC freshman Hansen and Ott missed UNC - Russo, Jones, Wubben-Moy and UNC GK Dickey made them.
Huge respect to UNC! They played amazing and gave us a GAME! Truly a nail biter to the end. Could have really went either way.. both teams battling non stop. Proud of both teams-- these girls are warriors. Looking forward to what next season brings!
Just based on what I saw during the tournament, Stanford has the best players by a nice margin. If you were to make a best 11 from the tournament (not necessarily the All tournament team), I'd guess Stanford would have at least 5. UCLA and UNC 2 to 3 each and WSU 1 or 2. JMHO. To put it another way, who would you take with the first 3 players in a CC draft? For me it would 1. Macario, 2. Haley 3. Sophia Smith All three of these are probably destined for USWNT in the not too distant future. I'd have to think and study for who the next 8 would be and in what order, but the first 3 are a slam dunk IMO.
I think you may be underestimating Naomi Girma -- who is only a sophomore! At least in the championship game, she was tremendous. And, there's a reason she was Pac 12 defender of the year.
CC draft? College Cup? There are players not in the CC that I think are every bit as good as Haley and Smith. Making the USWNT does not make them "better" per se. Thats a coaches judgment.
I absolutely may be underestimating Girma. You are making my point about Stanford having the most talent in the CC by a nice margin. I really like the freshman Bell from UNC, but the over riding point is that (contrary to an earlier poster) Stanford has the best talent by a nice margin over UNC and any other team. All 4 of those mentioned are coming back too. 007, I am not suggesting there aren't other players on that level from other teams. I was responding to an earlier post saying essentially that UNC had the most talent. You yourself, responded to it. I do think that the 3 I mentioned have excellent chances of making the USWNT in the future. CPT believes Naomi probably is in that same category. Heck, I could be wrong. I'm just really impressed with the combination of size, strength, speed/quickness and skillful touch that Haley possesses! She's a physical mismatch for most defenders.
You mistook my 'talent' comment of a few days ago. I said that while Stanford's //top-end// talent was superior to anybody's, UNC has the most //depth// of talent---meaning they can put more good, athletic players on the field than anybody, and I completely stand by that. That is precisely why, in my view, UNC was able to shut out a team with serious attacking talent. Stanford had some of the best players on the field, but UNC had good players all over, which gave them a chance to win the game.
I hear you. That said, exactly who on Stanford's starting 11 is not UNC caliber? We've agreed that at the top end Stanford is unparalleled this year.
If I recall correctly, in support of your post, Anson said at half time that Stanford has quality at every position. I interpreted that as meaning very high quality and at least as high as UNC's.
Sorry to be late responding: I was referring to UNC's reserves. Dorrance inserts, what, at least six new players in each half (sometimes more?)--and they play significant minutes (usually at least 15 in the first half, and maybe it's a bit more variable in the second) and give him quality, high-level play. And he does it every game, regardless of the opponent. I think he kept the starters in a bit longer in the title game, but the new group came in and played for a while--and did so in the second half as well, I believe. It's an advantage in a sport with a condensed schedule and certainly when you are playing one match less than 48 hours after your most recent match. Stanford's coach doesn't substitute as liberally. Whether he could do the same thing but just chooses not to do, I don't know--it's possible. There's no question that both teams are loaded with talent.
I'm counting on getting Olivia Athens back. I thought she was close to being their 2nd or 3rd best player last year although not as flashy or well-known
makes sense to me. It allows them to play this supercharged hyper-competitive battle for most of the match. Watch how often UNC's players are slide-tackling at balls. It's exciting in one sense and appeals to our love of hustle in young players. It also means they're making a lot of reckless challenges. Overall, it helps UNC because the opposition starts pulling out of challenges, subconsciously or not. It reminds of the saying in hockey, "finish your checks". When you know the other team is always coming in at you hard, you start making hasty, panicked decisions. That's the strategic effect of UNC's style of play and especially when referees simply don't protect the players on the field from reckless tackles, it's a strategy which can be maintained throughout the entire game. I'm sick of Anson Dorrance's approach to the game. I think its time has come and gone.
One of the great things about soccer is that it can be played a lot of different ways. The same can be said for most possession oriented sports - basketball, hockey, pointyball, lacrosse, field hockey, etc. There's no one correct way to play. My preferred style of soccer is tiki-taka with a lot of short, one-touch passes. Many don't like watching the soccer that I prefer because they find it boring. I happen to like watching it. UNC's style is not my preferred style either but it is effective. Additionally, I think that UNC gets a bad and undeserved reputation for their "style." They can be very direct and physical but more often than not I see that style spelled by periods of possession and precision passing.
Olivia is a great player but 2nd or 3rd is a reach mia,viviana, lucy,Karina, Ashley, those are top 5 in anyone top 5. Olivia 6 in my rankings. Jmho
Happy Holidays, Merry Xmas etc to all of you. Spirited debates and some disagreements in 2019 , but wishing all of you the very best for now and the upcoming year. Passion is what makes this fun. Cheers!!