It may come down to coaching some of the time, but not always. Sometimes there are elements of drama that have deep roots and that play a part (as is being discussed over on the UNC thread regarding the upcoming game with Notre Dame). Sometimes, the soccer gods do strange things. Having sat through 22 excruciating PKs yesterday in the Portland v Washington game, I can say that Portland played well, up to its potential. It wasn't a "down" game for them in which they "just didn't click." Washington also played well, up to its potential. Portland simply couldn't put the ball in the net a second time, and Washington played tactically as the game progressed to get to a shoot out where the odds would change from being in Portland's favor to 50-50. Credit to them for pulling it off and, out of 11 PKs, having 10 of them that were near perfect. The elements of drama most certainly played a part in the game. Portland and UW play each other every year. They play in each other's tournament every year. They know each others' facilities and fans better than any other's. UW has been losing to Portland for a long time now, but many times in close games. They know how Portland plays better than anyone, and vice versa. They lost to Portland earlier this year deep into the second overtime on a controversial PK call (one that even Portland fans thought might not have been legit, though perhaps called because of accumulated fouling by UW). Washington has been dreaming of this one for a long time, and to them it's far bigger than a win in the NCAA Tournament. All of that was right out there in the game and made it into a great battle of warriors that left the UW fans full of joy and the Portland fans in agony. That kind of epic battle is what makes soccer great.
cp, I have no quibble with your post. You do indeed describe some of the variables within soccer games, and especially at tournament time. Emotional motivation is a key element, as is the seemingly inexplicable inability to finish sometimes even as a team dominates in shots on goal. Those are all in the mix of what we are talking about. My point about coaching is that when moving beyond the vagaries of a single game to a series of games (6 to be exact) there may be an element of coaching involved to consistently and persistently get the team "up", ready to play, and focused. John Wooden was a master of this as his string of national championships attests, and one must wonder about Anson too.
No question about it. Very few coaches are able to guide their teams from the beginning to the end. I'd say also that it isn't even just the 6 games. It's guiding the players first from game 1 to the end of the regular season, with enough success to be positioned to maximize their chances in the Tournament. Then, it's guiding them through the Tournament. Not to mention doing a good enough job of recruiting to have players who have the potential to get there.
I think in this argument, where I think I agree with everyone all at once (haha), we can point out that some teams are "built" for trny success. For example, a UCI is having a magical year, but play a bunker and lump the ball out to a dynamic striker for runs. They also hope to get a free kick and score off of that. In essence, this is not a team that will do long-term NCAA damage. Is it great coaching to use what they have this year? Yep! Are they good at what they do? Yep! Will it mean consistently deep runs into the NCAA's? No. We are still going to see the teams with the best players win the most games. But the parity that is showing this year, IMHO, shows that those players are getting dispersed and that there are more and more coaches that are knowledgeable enough to coach to their strengths. So we will see an Oregon State (last year) or UCI (this year) who have decent players but can play a good game. And its good enough to pull off some upsets. And I think its great that more than the same 4 teams get to experience the college cup this year. It may end as the same final as a year ago, but some new faces is good for the game as a whole.
Stanford 21 shots - Santa Clara 6. I wonder if Santa Clara ever thought it would be playing in their half of the field for 90 percent of an opening weekend of an NCAA tournament!
I, in turn, wonder what would prompt somebody to look at a decontextualized statistic and infer (in this case erroneously) that by deint of these numbers, they understand anything about the particular ebb and flow of a well fought tactical battle. Plonking spectulative shots against a top notch keeper from 35 yards out might get one on the stat sheet but anyone at a game where such a tactic is being deployed can hear the collective groans of dismay from the soccer cognoscenti. In the case of the SCU-Cardinal match up, superlative goal keeping and determined defense served to thwart one of the most prolific and entertaining offenses in the nation, keeping the Broncos within reach and making for a thrilling end game. Always beware lies, damned lies and statistics!
Wow weather report - High in Saint Paul on Saturday about 31 for the Minnesota-Georgetown match. They're still on the beaches in the Twin Cities.
I think if you told Jerry that he was playing the undefeated #1 team in the country opening weekend, and that at the end of the weekend his team would have scored as many goals as they'd given up, he wouldn't have been surprised. Gee, I heard UCLA got more shots off than Stanford. Phone went dead before I could get the score. I'm sure if UCLA got off more shots they must have won, huh? Or at least been happy with the result, no?
Georgetown 1-nil over Minnesota. Sam Baker scores (as she has a couple of other times this season) off the corner kick at minute 89. Hoyas play Buckeyes next weekend for a spot in the College Cup final four.
Darn, phone keeps going out. I just heard UNC outshot Notre Dame. Didn't get the final result, but I'm sure UNC has to be happy with the outcome since they had that big lead in shots taken.
UNC's defense and their goalkeeping - are their primary weaknesses. It cost them tonight. They didn't have a complete team this year, which they usually have a complete team (or close to it) every year. In fact, this was probably Anson's least impressive overall roster (in talent/experience combined) since he's been head coach, even before all the injuries took place. That's how good UNC has been in the past (duh). Make no mistake, UNC still has many talented players on their roster now, but they lost so much talent from last year's team. The injuries also didn't help matters. They were still a Top 3-4 overall talented team this year (with and without the injuries), but they usually have the clear-cut #1 overall roster. So this was Anson's least impressive roster. We'll see what happens next year.
Perhaps his/her context was actually seeing the games. Perhaps there was no ebb and flow but instead a steady assault on the opponents end. Perhaps superlative goalkeeping (of that there can be no doubt) and a determined defense was simply fighting for their lives. Perhaps you can find the soccer cognoscenti sitting behind me who described LBSU as hooligans and typical of the primitive SoCal soccer game, who got real quite after the first 20 minutes.
Cognoscenti = Italian for "Those who condescend"? Well, you can't be talking about me. I supported Santa Clara the entire game and never got "quite".
An observation: This year, 51 of the top 64 RPI-rated teams were in the Tournament. This is as compared to 44 to 46 of the top 64 over the previous three years. I felt going in that the tournament was so dense with good teams that it promised to be most difficult tournament ever to win. So far, the results seem to confirm that.
BC Eagles top Washington 1-0 in the first OT. So Stanford v. BC and Ohio State v. ND are the semi-final matches next week.
Saint Joseph's 1, St Louis 0. First home loss for STL in a little over two seasons. SJU advances to Richmond to meet the winner of George Mason/VCU, while STL went from on the bubble to out with a pair of shutout losses in the last week.