UNC 2019

What you say is exactly the question I am asking. The top 20 or so teams have to schedule non conference games AND are looking to not let their rpi slip too much by scheduling real cream puffs. So ideally they are looking to find teams that are willing to play them who could actually give them a challenge and theoretically there are some good teams out there (Santa Clara) who would relish taking a shot at the top teams for the high boost it would give their program and their rpi..

On the other hand, how the heck do weak teams end up playing very strong ones? I was using UNLV as an example. On what basis was their decision made to come across the country and play two highly ranked teams? They could just have said "no thank you" when they were offered the invitation by Duke and considering the possible (probable) outcome. Why did they decide that spending the weekend in North Carolina was a good idea as almost anyone could have predicted two shut-outs? There has to be an upside for them to have made the decision to fly east.

 

It's much better to lose to North Carolina and Duke, as an example, than to two teams ranked significantly lower, since strength of schedule is measured primarily by your opponents' winning percentages and UNC and Duke are likely to have very good winning percentages and lower ranked teams aren't. Plus, from a recruiting standpoint, a lot of girls would love to be able to have played those two teams even if they got killed.

This is true also for teams that are likely to be reasonably well ranked, higher than a team like UNLV. There's absolutely no reason for them to want to avoid UNC since, in all likelihood the game will be a wash due to the good that UNC will do for their strength of schedule. Plus, a win or tie against a team ranked as high as UNC is likely to be ranked should be gold when it comes to Women's Soccer Committee decision-making. So, a good team playing UNC is a no-lose situation.

I think you have to attribute the opponents' in the UNC and Duke tournaments to those two teams' scheduling strategies, not to whether other teams are willing to play them.

 

Maybe 10k and free hotels?

 

No, because sometimes his former protegees and friends beat him.

 

I only peripherally follow UNC. I used to follow them more when I knew players on the roster that my kid played with but I really don't know any of the players anymore. Anyway, this may have already been discussed but why isn't Dorwart playing?

 

No specific diagnosis has been released. but Anson has commented several times that she is injured. He is in the habit of talking up Dowart as he thinks she is an excellent player and hard worker, and so her injury is apparently on his mind.

 

This could be another year! So very strong at every position. Lots of depth everywhere.
But, 2 questions. Why do they not look stronger on corners? They are getting a ton of them, but don't seem to have much imagination or confidence. Maybe it's just early in the season but doesn't look like something they are putting much emphasis or training time on. Maybe they are just putting their emphasis on getting their run of play better and better tuned - which is good and understandable - but there may come a time when they could use more production off corners.

Second questions: in the WF game, why was Russo not offside? Sure looked like she was on the 2 on 1 break.

 

You second question first....
My careful look at the video shows that Russo, and the WF defender were exactly abeam of each other when the ball left Andrzejewski's foot. (In other words the linesman got the call right --no offside.) At first glance a TV shot looking at any other part of the field except straight in front of the camera introduces parallax for the viewer which skews the perception of what is the same position up and down the field. The way to solve this problem is to stop the video at exactly the moment that the ball leaves the foot of the passer and do some measuring. Here's how:

Get a straight edge (like a ruler or a large sheet of paper) so as to find the "vanishing point" of the picture. First, align the straight edge with a known parallel line on the field (in this case the end line at the west end of the field) and extend that line up to the left. It will cross into the stands and pass through the bottom of the zero of Wake's score and on out of the picture (and in my case right off the edge of my computer screen. THEN do the same on the other obvious parallel line in the picture (the top of the 18 yard box) and extend this line until it intersects the first extended line. This intersection is the "vanishing point" for the visual perspective of this picture. (You may have to tape a piece of card stock to the edge of your screen to mark the VP beyond the left of the edge of the screen.) Now align your straight edge at the vanishing point and while keeping its edge there, rotate the straight paper edge or ruler until it intersects the feet of the players in question. In this case I found that Russo and the WF defender are exactly in alignment at the moment the ball is kicked. (A second later, Russo is out in front.)

As to your concern that corner kick set pieces are not producing goals... Scoring from a corner kick is dependent on a number of factors.

First and foremost is the quality of the defense in the box. If he box is sufficiently populated with aggressive defenders such that all offensive players are tightly marked, then it is always difficult to score. Further, the defensive team has a numerical advantage in that they usually have 10 players in the box (or eleven if they are not concerned to place a forward up field for a possible counter attack) and the offense has 8 or 7 players in the box in that three or 4 players are occupied elsewhere. (eg the keeper is in the back field and one or two defenders are out of the box to clean up the ball popping out or to defend a counter attack, and then, of course the server is in the corner kicking the ball. All of this is to say that the defense can even double team likely scorers and mark everyone else too.

Next, size and/or jumping ability matter. The Wake team has a lot of starters who are in the 5'8" to 5'10" range. Having that size usually means that defending a corner kick is easier than having to use players 3 inches shorter.

Next, at the college level, getting a server that can consistently place the ball in a pre-sected spot at the right vertical angle and right velocity is a rare thing.

So I too hope that the Heels an get better at set pieces, but for that to happen, a lot of little tings will have to be trained and honed.

 

Great insights and great responses, SH! I really appreciate your care in answering my questions.

The parallax issues is interesting. I wonder haw this is handled in the VAR systems that are all the rage in Europe? I suppose if you had a grid of cameras, say lining all four sides of the field and at known points, you could compute a "true" representation of the relative positions of offensive and defensive players. Are they dong anything like this or just relying on multiple broadcast video shots?

 

My assumption is that the VAR system uses both a lot of cameras (did I read a dozen or more?) and uses a correction system for the parallax adjustment too. The parallax system is completely computerized and works well. The American football TV broadcasts have had this system for over a decade with their yellow lines overlaid on the field for first downs.

The debate around the VAR system is in the way it changes the way the game is played. Soccer aficionados have always argued that the game has an on going flow which is part of the "beautiful game" and have taken pride in the fact that play is stopped only for fouls or offside that give a team a realistic advantage over the other or are seriously dangerous. (Hence the "advantage" rule for fouls and offside non calls when the mass of each player are for all practical purposes aligned.) Soccer lovers have always derided American sports such as basketball, football, and baseball where there is as much or more standing around time as there is actual playing time. The VAR system now keeps the clock stopped for minutes and makes judgements on the basis of a player running at full speed has the toe of one foot offside when when the major mass of the body was not.

On the other hand, there has always been controversy about the quality of refereeing. Soccer is a tremendously hard game to referee. The fact of the matter is that there are only a few human beings who can do that job consistently well. Personality is as much a factor as incisive decisions, great fitness to keep up, brilliant strategy to be in the best place to see a foul, etc, etc, and then, for most referees, get paid a pittance and be the focus of hatred and derision. Great job, huh? The late hall of famer Pat Smith was the only one I ever saw who could do this job and be liked by everyone.

Cheers!

 

I may be wrong about this, and someone please correct me if I am, but I believe that coaches may be bound on how much medical information that they are able to reveal to the public, via the media or whatever means, due to FERPA and/or HIPPA guidelines.

 

Where was Maycee Bell? The defense is totally different without the two center backs. W-M and MB work together so well - more than the sum of the parts, individually. Time to put some more work on corners? They pushed back against Arkansas' tactical physical play but its was clearly disproportionately disruptive to the heels.

 

The opposing team played very physical game. Anson team either wasn't expecting it or didn't deal with it well. I'm guessing they never play that team again and it has nothing do with losing.

 

Arkansas 2, UNC nil

Game was on ESPNU so if you have pay tv you may be able to see the recap.

I actually thought Arkansas deserved to win that game. Both goals were finished with composure. The 2nd goal started with a sick volley pass that slid the attacker in and she finished well (UNC gk probably shouldn't have been beaten to the near post but still a great finish.)

I don't buy the "physical" excuses many here are putting forth. I believe Arkansas fouled more (didn't see box score yet but probably something like 10 for UNC and 16 for Arkansas but I saw UNC wreck plenty of Arkansas players and walk away with I think only 1 yellow card. A prime example is a foul late in the game by Pinto who was frustrated game was slipping away and just clobbers Arkansas player from behind. I though Arkansas could have scored 3 goals. Arkansas should have scored earlier in the game with a wide open header from an excellent cross (approx 8 min in.) I thought the shots were close too.

Overall I thought UNC's passing was terrible. Ex. The first part of the game Dorsey turned the ball over again and again. Sometimes she just kicked it forward and over the end line for a goal kick. UNC also didn't take advantage of their chances to score.

UNC fans shouldn't worry too much about this result. Dorrance could use this to help them improve. Sometimes players get lulled into believing they will roll everyone because they are #1. I think now he can push them a bit more which could be dangerous for other teams going forward.

 

Thanks for your description of the game, Ping.

You describe a foul late in the game by Pinto, but what you describe is totally uncharacteristic of Pinto who always plays with incredible composure.. I checked and indeed it was not Pinto, but Mucherera, who does sometime let her frustrations show. You are spot on in surmising a 6 foul differential. 18 to 12. Looking at the stats it looks like an evenly matched game but with better shooting by Arkansas. Shots 12-10 UNC, Corners 6-3 UNC, key stats were shots on goal 3 each and 3 saves by Ark to 1 by UNC.

I will agree that the absence of Maycee Bell would have been critical. She is an incredible defender. To me, she looked a little woosey last Thursday and I thought that she should have been removed late in the game She may be being held out for an injury (or just maybe sick.. who knows!).

Frosh Dorsey got her first start as Bell's replacement, She has a lot to learn and this surely was baptism by fire.

The season will continue.

 

Checking the NCAA stats, Arkansas' average fouls committed per game is 10.14, putting them tied for 215th. #1 rank is the fewest.

UNC's average is 8.43 putting them at #114.

That's not a big difference per game.

Arkansas' 18 fouls against UNC makes one wonder whether it was a conscious tactic -- disrupt the flow of UNC's attack?

 

If is was a conscious tactic, it was right out of the playbook of Florida in the 1998 NCAA Chamopionship game. The winning tactic was to bunker and also to foul Carolina every time a Carolina player controlled the ball within 30 yards of the goal. It was a gutsy strategy and it worked! The foul stats for the game was 31-4. And most of those 31 Florida fouls were in the second half to protect the 1-0 lead from the 6th minute on a direct free kick following a rare UNC foul. (I believe that 31 fouls by one team is by far an all time record for NCAA tournament play.)

In my mind It was a gutsy strategy because it took advantage of the fact that the referee refused to card players some of whom had committed 5 or more fouls. While the NCAA rules require a yellow card for "persistent infringement" of the laws of the game (see NCAA rule 14) only some referees would issue cards if a players was clearly repeatedly using fouling as a tactic (often called "professional" fouling.) Unfortunately for UNC the ref of that game simply repeated about 20 verbal warnings. I, and other fans in the stands were appalled at the refereeing as it was so clear that the same 5 or so players were running at UNC players with the intent to foul and disrupt the flow and kill time (which is another cardable offense.) (And I should note, the fouls was not vicious or overly dangerous, but simply running into UNC players with the ball enough to knock them down and get the foul called.)

As I note above, it was a wining tactic that worked! But if Arkansas coaches were borrowing this page from Florida, they did a nicer job of it. (I suspect it may have been instructions to "not back down" rather than to methodically repeatedly foul as a winning tactic.)

 

persistent and"professional" fouls are not penalized firmly enough. You should get a talking to, then a card. Too many referees do not enforce the rules, allowing physicality to be overly rewarded relative to other skills.

Im not saying Arkansas went over the line, just making a point

 

I thought Florida scored in that title game after a terrible PK call by the ref. Not so?

 

I do not remember the foul as such but it was on the right side outside the box. The free kick was perfect with a strong hit into the side netting at the far post.

(But I can't really be sure with a 21 year old memory.)

 

I recall Lori Fair bringing down Danielle Fotopoulos and more or less admitting that she had no choice but to foul in post-match comments.

 

Wow! Great to have all these recollections.

I was also at the game. My recollections of the fouls is less that Florida was running at our players but, rather, that every time one of ours turned on a Florida player or ran past her, they would grab a handful of jersey. It was so persistent that UNC could not establish any continuous offense.

I recall the UNC foul as being just outside the box on the right, as SH reminds us; Fair did, I believe, bring her down from behind. But I remember the kick as deflecting off the crossbar over our fairly short goalie, (Siri Mullinix?).

I think Wambach was on that team but out because of injury.

It was also cold as hell!

 

Wow, lots of us at that game. My wife and I were there, too. The two semi-final games were fantastic -- Santa Clara v Florida and Portland v UNC in that epic game.