I've been rewatching the game on and off today since I missed big chunks of it and they did show in the half time highlights some brief replay of both the foul and the "double bird" reaction--(I didn't know that it was a thing to do on the pitch--a sheltered life I guess). The replay video showed the harried, ref walking up immediately behind Graham and digging for her colorful cards. And then Graham got incredulous that she got red carded, etc., etc. Not exactly a 'One Shining Moment' moment. The Double-Bird Replay was scrambled out so as not to offend... whoever. Humorous. Then they showed the regrettable foul that forced Terri? Delaperuta out of the game as well. Jill Hedren implied that all this replay were lowlights rather than highlights since the half didn't really have any.
As one who does not have a TV, and whose internet s-l-o-w dsl turns a 90 minute game into a three hour ordeal of watching a frozen screen several times a minute or so (on a good day, that is) and then jumping to live action which is 30 yards down the field from where it left off), so my wife and I try to see the games live when ever possible. We consider all venues within 2 hours driving distance all home games, so we see the Heels live at Wake Forest, NCSU, Duke, and Virginia Tech when they're not visiting at Chapel Hill. But I must admit, that with today's television technology, seeing the games from time to time on screen is eyeopening. The zooming in to get closeups and then plays shown from different angles makes things orders of magnitude more clear (especially if they are repeated several times). In contrast, from the stands about 70 yards from the "Double Bird" action I saw what looked line a foul from behind, but at that distance could not make clear the footing of the players. When Talia jumped up so did the crowd in the rows in front of me and so could not see any of the action until I was able to stand up and saw a red card presented. And I did not meaningfully see any of the action of the red for Talia except seeing a red and later a yellow held up, but it was unclear which player(s) were being carded. So Yay for the TV technology which certainly helps fans see what has happened, and cheers to the fans in the stands as we are a critical part of the experience when seeing games in person. ...And a PS for the closeup of Robbie Church and Delaney Graham, as it was a real success for TV as we got to watch an experienced coach skillfully handle the conversation with his frustrated and angry player. Lots of respect from this UNC fan for coach Church.
I prefer the TV experience for sports. If I want a live experience, I'll go to the theater. Part of it is that replays are just better on TV, even if you're someplace with a jumbo Tron. I don't have to deal with drunk obnoxious fans, I'm not much into cheering anyway, but here's the real kicker: you don't have to drive home after a loss. I'm four and a half hours away from Charlottesville. I just cannot stand that long a drive home if we lose. Makes me question my whole fandom. Each of the last six years I made it to Va for one-two games. This year I didn't. I don't feel like I missed out.
Soccerhunter and Val1, you are making me realize how lucky we are. We are 15 minutes from Providence Park where the Thorns play and 15 minutes from the U of Portland where the Pilots play -- a life of soccer luxury. At U of P, our season tickets are right next to where the parents sit, so we chat with them regularly during games. We go, rain or shine, to support the players in good years and bad. For us old soccer fans, life in this "beehive of terrorism" is good!
This program needs new ideas. Anson is not willing to adapt at all. So why does he continue? I don't get it. How many losses to FSU will it get through to him that high pressure, playing a lot people doesn't work. Were struggling against teams that have way less talent. It don't matter how many 5 and 4 star recruits we have, if we change anything. System doesn't work anymore.
Frustrating losing to Mark Krikorian players again. It is what it is. Waiting for Anson to have a Roy Williams moment.
Just getting back to my computer after a very busy day and discover the 2-1 loss to FSU. Sigh. We beat the Seminoles three weeks ago at FSU, and they certainly returned the favor today. (Both matches by 2-1) From what I understand reading the article and seeing the box score and FSU video highlights, we were beaten today by good defense and Jenna Nighswonger (along with with an alert Jody Brown.) We scored first with a nice finish from Avery Patterson on a feed from Izzy Cox, but then Nighswonger hit an unstoppable perfect golazzo from the right corner. The ball sailed above Emmie's hand as she jumped and then dipped down below the bar and curled into he goal. Early in the second half Nighswonger hit a low cannon shot from about 23 yards out which Emmie stopped from a sprawling dive but FSU's Jody Brown alertly was there to finish before Emmie could reclaim the ball. I can't speak to the Heels offense other to note that while the shots on goal were almost even (6-5 to FSU) we were out shot 12-7 for the game and had no corner kicks compared to 7 for FSU. (This latter fact is highly unusual as this is the first time this season that the Heels have had less corners than the opposition.) The Heels need to regroup and get ready for the NCAAs. As a last note, are we still having problems with keeping our defenders on the field? Already three starting defenders have departed with injuries, and the box score shows our stalwart (90 minutes) right back Tessa Dellarose going out in then first half and not returning, and also Senior Julie Dorsey playing only 65 minutes (when for 4 years she has usually played 90 minuted per game.)
FSU played much better. They just didn’t make the same mistakes we did in this game. UNC was just off, particularly in our midfield. Lots of errant passes, passes with the wrong pace, and straight turnovers.
Hard to know these things when you’re not part of the team, but from the outside it did not appear that Dorsey or Dellarose was hurt. Just seemed like Dorrance wanted to give more time to Elgin and Tolentino, Both are talented, believe they’ve been working their way back from injuries. Don’t know enough to speculate whether it was thought Tolentino might help with a stagnant offense.
Indeed, it is quite hard to interpret properly why certain decisions are made by the coaching staff during a game. Sometimes it's obvious, other times there is no knowing. The conundrum of a team playing above or below its typical level has been a factor in sports forever. It is especially obvious in low scoring games such as soccer. In contrast, basketball, for example, plays to final scores in the 80 range and a rough analysis might expect about 90 shots taken with roughly a 40% scoring rate (with foul shots roughly balancing 3-pointers). Some times teams are hot and sometimes it seems that nobody can find the basket, but the sheer number of shots from multiple players makes it seem from the stands as though the usual missing and hitting of shots is normal. In soccer where games are considered to be in the "normal" range if only a few goals are scored and where half an hour between goals happens routinely and games are most commonly lost or won by a single point, there is plenty of time for fans (and coaches) to wonder why teams are not playing up to their "potential". I knew a coach 25 years ago who would often say to his players "Which team has come to play well, today? Will our team today be the team who played really well last week and handily beat the league leading team? Or will it be the team who showed up two weeks ago whose minds were apparently somewhere else and played poorly? Women's Division I soccer is now to the point that easily several dozen teams could realistically dream of coming away with a win in the 6th round of the NCAA tournament IF they properly focused on playing their best both physically and mentally for 6 straight games. Sure, we all know that statistically the winner will most likely be one of the first or second seeds, but that too is a matter of focus. Single elimination tournaments are do or die events not only for the players and coaches, but for fans as well. The joy or grief is felt by all. Let's all keep our cool and accept what comes, living to try again next year and supporting our teams and other teams in a positive manner, as all are trying to do their best.
The overall #4 ND and #5 seeds UNC have a challenging bracket IMO. IT should be the hardest of the 4 and if the eye test means anything, it is. If seedings hold, UNC would have to beat Old Dominion, UGA and Stanford in order to get to a potential match for making the CC with ND. Editorial note: IMHO, ND was the best team we played all year. That is not meant to disrespect UNC or UVA (they took it to us, but we won). ND must beat Omaha, Santa Clara and Mich State (or TCU) to get the opportunity to face UNC. Not that you care, but I think UVA has a winnable bracket with Penn St and UCLA in the way. Not easy, but both winnable if UVA brings their "A Game". Duke also has a reasonable shot with USCe and Alabama in their way. I'm not sold on Alabama. Maybe they will prove me wrong. Maybe USCw ends up in the Elite 8. How about an all ACC CC? Highly unlikely, but possible.
Because PK games are counted as ties, from an RPI perspective, ND had a better weekend (1 tie) than UNC (0-1-1). Had UNC lost in PKs to dook they would have had a better chance at a No. 1 seed, which seems perverse.
and after what happened last year it only reinforces the notion that those on the committee do not actually watch the games but just look at stats and rpi to make their decisions. UNC getting a #2 is just as wrong this year as it was last year, but for different reasons. Breifly my thoughts on the FSU game as I was out of town for it and could only watch on my phone screen. The "bad" Carolina reared its head in this game, in the second half in particular. I don't think FSU played better than they did during the ACC Regular season. Obviously once they took the lead that perception becomes skewed, but even before then I thought FSU just wasn't generating the kind of offense going forward they did a few weeks ago. While I think FSU was the better team in both games, UNC in the regular season game did *more* with possession. That had a rippling effect that included things like putting increased pressure on FSU to play through the midfield and a noticeable mitigation of Nighswonger. Sunday, the Tar Heels were too forceful going forward and gave up possession, both more frequently and in more frustrating areas of the field. We saw the same thing in two previous losses vs UVa and VT and again in the win vs WF where we barely hung on. That has been the "bad" Carolina of 2022. I feel like an over correction occurred from the Duke game to the FSU game. They went into the semi-final with a thought they they need to be deliberate and break down the Blue Devils by moving the ball around steadily. A problem arose in that game where there was a lack of urgency and movement towards goal that mirrored the stereotype in soccer of "possession without purpose". I've personally been trying to encourage UNC to play with more possession without purpose and we got it in the final few games of the season. The concern then became that they couldn't seem to switch it off and decide "okay now we need to go, now we need to push with a purpose" ... So UNC came into the FSU game thinking "we need to curb our possession without purpose" and ended up getting clobbered because they didn't have any at all. It was probably two of the worse possible styles of play that UNC could have played in back to back games. Spending nearly 90 minutes in the oppositions final third thinking you hadn't been forceful enough and try to correct that coming up against a team that was already going to severely limit your time in the final third. Going forward they have to get back to the possession, even a possession without purpose ... because even though they haven't always looked great doing it, they *have* always managed to win with it. Find the right time to flip that switch to be more forceful, and the Heels will be fine.
I wouldn't feel too bad about Triangle folks, as I have long felt like we have had the best grouping of Women's Soccer for a long time now, to say nothing of repeatedly getting the ACC and NCAA Tournaments. I'm about 15 minutes away from Wakemed Soccer Park and NC State, 30 away from Duke, 40 away from UNC. Wake Forest is roughly 2 hours and VT and UVa are nice day trips. I've been wanting to try Clemson which I think will be similar in time to the occasional trips I've taken up to see Spirit games in DC. I don't think there's a better central location to great Women's Soccer anywhere else in the country.
If you read up on the requirements that the Committee must follow, this is exactly what they are supposed to do. They must base their decisions on game results data generated over the course of the season. I should qualify that by saying that the limitation to game results data strictly applies to the at large selections. The Committee, if it wants to exercise it, has more leeway with seeds. On the other hand, history indicates that the Committee pretty much sticks to the data for seeds, too.
and thus the preverse flaw is revealed as noted previously ... because of how RPI stats are calculated, UNC would have had a better chance at a #1 seed if they had lost to Duke in the shootout in the semifinal. The "extra" game cost them.
Could be, but I doubt it. When the Committee gets to the #1 seeds, I do not think the fine points of the RPI are decisive. They are breaking things down to details -- head to head results, results against common opponents, results against other strong teams, and so on. This does not mean you are wrong about the RPI, just that the Committee knows how the RPI works and at that point is looking at more particular data points, although possibly in combination with the RPI. I did watch the FSU v UNC game, and if you think Committee members should be making decisions based on watching games, in this case I think it would not have helped UNC. As you have noted, they did not look good. What struck me was how many 1 v 1 battles the FSU players won. I was really surprised. One more point, however, on the RPI. If it screws anyone, it is teams from the West. Realistically, UCLA, Stanford, and Southern California probably all are in the same group as Florida State, UNC, and FSU. But look how Stanford and Southern Cal are seeded.
while you're not wrong, it's not the point I'm trying to make ... I'll ask you this ... what happens if UNC loses that game against Duke on PK's, and then it's Duke that FSU defeats in the final and not UNC?
I ran the numbers with your scenario. The RPI ranks of the top five would have changed slightly, with UNC moving up from 5 to 4 and Notre Dame moving down from 4 to 5. Also, Duke would have dropped from 7 to 8 and St Louis would have moved up from 8 to 7. For how the RPI works, this makes your point. However, I also ran the results through my bracket formation system. My system is good at picking #1 seeds and got all four of them correct this year. (The system has a 98.2% match rate with #1 seeds for the period since 2007.) The system had UNC with a slightly better profile but still not getting a #1 seed. Rather, the #1 seeds stayed as the Committee seeded them. (Also, the Duke and St Louis switches would not have changed their seeds.) Thus, although it is not certain, it looks like your scenario would not have resulted in a seeding change, which makes my point. The UNC profile plusses mostly were at least partly dependent on the ACC being the #1 conference in RPI strength. Alabama had a couple of minuses, related to a couple of poor results, but the Committee apparently did not consider that a barrier to a #1 seed. This is something I had been watching for, to see what the Committee would do about it, since I have suspected from the data over the years that a few poor results do not have much impact on Committee decisions.
as I tweeted, it would be easy to try and take away too much from this game. ODU was obviously a very well coached team whose play style through the midfield reminds me a bit of how the NC Courage go about things. However, they just didn't have the talent in more than two positions and could not possibly hope to break down the UNC defense effectively. A set piece goal seemed to be their best chance in this game with UNC conceding a lot of silly FK opportunities. My game MVP is Libby Moore first, then Maddie Dahlien second. Moore was outrageously good ... she seemed to break up more ODU possessions than the rest of the team combined. A little sloppiness from the Heels but they obviously had the mindset to do a better job retaining possession. They worked on winning 50/50 balls and then making the possession retention pass even when it might be better for them in this game to push forward in the space they had. The same decisions in the ACC final would have made an absolute world of a difference in that game, as it had in the first meeting vs FSU. Small wrinkle Talia Dellaperuta pushing forward with Emily Colton shifting back a little more often. It's either a situational pivot, they adjust based on the personal on the field, or something. I couldn't really spot a pattern there and maybe someone who is better at analytics could say what it was. I do think with Talia going forward with the way she did in this game the Heels looked as good as they had in any game without Sam Meza. Improvement in finding the right kind of "force" in the right kind of movement into the final third, but still isn't where it needed to be. Tar Heels reverted a little bit to the "bad" Carolina after the fourth goal but it was for a different reason and a little more forgivable. Avery Patterson 1 v 4 on the touch line with less than 10 to go, she goes for it and doesn't quite pull it off, but she's got a big grin on her face after that gets a chuckle from the crowd around me. Round 2 against Georgia on Thursday. It's been long enough where I don't know if it's the same overly physical Bulldogs that Carolina faced the last time we played them. I think it was at Koskinen for one of those classic games. I'd be tempted, if I was Anson, to make Meza available but not play her unless the Heels actually fall behind. That being said, I don't know how serious Meza's injury is. She was dressed down tonight and in a boot.
https://goheels.com/news/2022/11/13/times-set-for-ncaa-womens-soccer-second-and-third-round.aspx Round 2 vs Georgia is on Thursday at 5pm, Round 3 vs the winner of Stanford vs BYU on Saturday at 11:30am That's horrific and I hope it's an error.
Looks very possible. It has to be Thur-Sat because of BYU and UNC has a home football game at 5:30 so UNC probably wants it done early to not interfere.
It is what the NCAA bracket says, too. Thursday and Saturday is per NCAA rule because BYU does not play on Sunday. UNC football plays at home at 5:30 pm on Saturday, which probably explains the 11:30 am game time. The relatively early Thursday game times probably are to allow as much recover time as possible before the Saturday game.
Any idea why UNC doesn’t have the earlier game on Thursday? Seems like the extra rest — even just 2-3 hours — would be beneficial and UNC is the higher seed.