Wow, once Momiki and Balcer came on, the last 10' was a totally different team. Momiki actually looks for short inside crosses to header runs. Everybody gazes in that direction, but Momiki sees it, and spends her possessions executing it. What did I miss before that?
If Utah could think in the final third they would be easily winning but they give up a late, very late, goal to lose in a humiliating fashion.
Yes, your previous post didn't really age well (see below)... I had precicted a 1-1 draw, but I won't complain. Momiki had a brilliant game despite being subbed-in at 81', and anyway, since I correctly predicted at least OL's goal, I am ahead of all of the people who had predicted an 1-0 win for Utah.
I had a few ending posts saved in my clipboard and that one somehow escaped from confinement. I have since edited it but you caught me.
Balcer is a real difference maker, not just in scoring the goal but helped create chances as well. Game would be different if Utah could have scored any of their chances though, but so goes the game.
Well I watched the entire ninety and the only part really worth watching was the five minutes of stoppage at the end. It is the standard for this year's NWSL matches.
I get they had chances, but how many, if any, were better than Jenkins' chance from Weatherholt's cross, McNabb's chance from Momiki's cross, and Balcer's goal from Momiki again? Add in the fact that Smith arguably should have won a penalty for the Reign, and this wasn't a case of Utah dominating the Reign in chance creation in my opinion. Utah's chances were more in the realm of Spencer's shot wide of the near post and Balcer's long range shot that was well saved by Barnhart, and their higher probability chances were put off by covering Reign players like Weatherholt.
Was watching this match along with 3 other PL matches (for fantasy purpose) so did not pay that close attention to it. I will say though I hope that goal gives the team a bit of confidence. And I would like to see Momiki and Balcer start again. I know they did start against Houston but at this point I believe they are the better combination and need to start building some consistency.
Sometimes a player that is effective off the bench is not as effective starting. It is a huge advantage for many forwards to be fresh against a tiring defense. That may or may not be the case here but I think it may well be.
Some Reign-centric observations: McNabb is proving to be very dependable. Versatile, with good positioning. Feel like Spencer was told to run like the Dickens for 60 minutes and she did that. Cox had a good match, especially the first half where she was one of the few who was distributing effectively. When she and Momiki and Balcer combined on the right, you could see that it matters about technique. Immediate quality and chances. So many passes resulted in turnovers (on both sides) throughout the match because of heavy first touches, lack of trapping, sigh. Betos good command of the box, which really helped out the center backs. Jenkins has good qualities, but for now she seems more suited to situational substitute. Have been interested in the corners. Last match, all short corners (might have missed one or two)--I get why that might be, but not a fan. Balcer/Momiki so much fun to watch! I like Quinn, but are she and Long too much birds of a feather? Still long periods of aimlessness, but there are positives to build on. Also liked Smith further up the pitch.
Except CBS chooses highlights that show VERY little of what actually happened. They shorten a lot of the play so it becomes even more meaningless than it was at the time it happened.
I just watched the match highlights and can't fathom how Utah did not score in this game. So many close misses.
It is actually quite simple. They did not have a forward that was able to hit the goal and nobody could keep the ball down. A shot over the top of the goal is wasted and Utah wasted a number on shots that way and the mised of a number of crosses that a good 12 year old could hit better. Nobody ever missed a goal by shooting under the goal but Utah seems to have not learned that simple lesson. Also A-Rod proved, in this game, that she can kill a promising attack as well as anyone else. After Utah's defense tired it was just a matter of could the Reign finish and they did manage that and Utah even with better chances earlier in the game could not score.
I just wanted to say Balcer can certainly strike a ball -and she shoots on frame, which is a trait quite lacking in other players this tournament. Her first two shots went to Barnhart’s right and elicited good saves. Her screamer that knocked Leach over was not headed over the goal, either. On the goal I thought I detected Barnhart leaning toward the near post, Momiki’s side, anticipating that the header would get sent “back the way it came.” But Balcer deftly directed it low to the far post and Barnhart couldn’t get down fast enough to save it. In my head, I’m calling her Bethany Baller (not original, I’m sure).
I think we're making two different, but valid points. I didn't say Utah's were good chances, but that's on Utah. Until about the 70th minute, Utah definitely created tons of chances, but yes, few were dangerous and there wasn't much to show from them because they couldn't even put the shot on frame or in some cases even get a shot off because they dribbled away from goal. This isn't a knock on the Reign; if I had to guess, they probably had the better of possession for most of the game, but they weren't doing much with it either. My statement was a knock on Utah for not being able to even get shots on frame. So, like I said, if they'd been able to put one or two of their chances away in the first 60-70 minutes, it would have been a different game. Also this isn't really related, but I'm really interested in the cross-group games. This group with the Reign, Houston, Utah, and Sky Blue definitely looks weaker than the other.
By rewatching it in highlights, it seems to me that the problem wasn't actually "a bouncing ball", but the fact that Ratcliffe wasn't able to trap the ball properly, thus resulting in a "bouncing ball".
I am surprised at how many players are not able to keep the ball down there are after the break. Striking the ball is one of the few skills you can practice alone as long as you have a goal or a rebound net and a few soccer balls. The technique is simple as well and mostly can be mastered by working on one simple skill: Land back on the foot you shoot with. That forces all the other pieces that players find so hard to master like not leaning back or keeping your knee over the ball. The problem is that practicing shooting as if in a game situation is boring and hard and most players won't bother. Also most players believe the lie that "practice make perfect." While the truth is that "practice makes permanent" while "perfect practice makes perfect." The way to really learn a skill is to do it hundreds of times at a slow speed until you can do it with no mistakes. Then do it 100s of times at medium speed until you never miss and only then do it at full speed hundreds of times until you never miss. I seems that most of the NWSL ladies do not want to go through all the boring steps to get to be their best, Of course this is true around the world and in the men it is even worse. I have watched several MLS matches and practices and there too I see nearly no one that practices correctly. "Good players practice until they get it right while great players practice until they never get it wrong."
I thought "run like the Dickens" was a well know usage. "Dickins," along with being a pretty good writer is often use as a modifier which means "a lot" or extremely. So "run like the Dickens" roughly means "Run extremely fast or "run like hell" or to expand "Run like all the hounds of hell were chasing you." A literal translation into current common English would be "Run like the Devil." "Dickins" actually has nothing to do with the word but rather is used to avoid saying "Devil" as that word was somewhat taboo in polite society and even among the commoners. I think Shakespeare was the first writer to use it in one of his "lesser" plays. I believe it could have been in "The Merry Wives of Windsor." The English often go a LONG ways to avoid saying certain things involving the Devil like "hell" or any of the Devil's various names. In fact that is how words like "heck" came into being. I am sure that other languages have similar phrases. I know French and German have a lot of them and I am pretty sure your Italian abounds with them. After all the Catholic Church had and has a huge influence in much of Europe and hence on the development of many languages.
Yes, nothing to do with Charles Dickens, who was a portly fellow and would never best any of the players in a foot race Common ways to use it would be: hurts like the dickens what the dickens I now challenge everyone to use it in the next week and report back ...