They value physicality first and foremost, at least it appears to me, and not skill on the ball. I am happy that Clemson is a rising power in soccer, I just don't like their style.
They actually sealed it last night. They beat West Virginia 1-0 to win their first Big 12 Title in program history. Congrats to coach Bell and his staff
Rising team, not power, is a better way to put it. They were the worst team in the ACC for years and years.
Years and Years means something different to you than to me -- no doubt because I probably am way older. This table shows the Clemson RPI and Massey ranks since 2007. Earlier than 2007, I believe Clemson was good, as they were in 2007. They had a coaching disaster, I believe, and then Radwanski came in and has brought them back. Based on where they were in 2007, I am inclined to think they have reached their likely natural steady state and will stay about where they are so long as Radwanski is coach. Radwanski came to Clemson from UNC Greensboro where he was successful and highly regarded.
No question you are older than me and I appreciate your research, always have. You are one of the more knowledgeable posters. I was recalling the 08 to 13 stretch for Clemson. 18' and 19' were not good seasons either. Regardless I was wrong to call them a rising power.
I dont know, but I do know that last time they went to Clemson they lost in OT 0-1 and played worse than they did in the 0-3 loss this year. Sometimes the score flatters one team or the other.Tendency I see in Womens soccer is to look at scores and then create a narrative to fit it.
My point is, UVA has been the cream of the crop for a long time and maybe Clemson is catching up to the rest of the upper tier in the ACC.
Nothing replaces seeing it in person. Better yet, is being able to rewatch it and stop and rewind as needed. Scores could absolutely be deceptive. Looking at stats is a better gauge but that too can be misleading. One team may have 16 shots and the other team may have 10 shots. The question is how many of those 16 shots were dangerous? If eight of the 10 shots were dangerous while the other team only had four dangerous shots, well you see what I’m getting at. Shots on goal are good, but then again were they dangerous shots on goal or routine stops from a distance. Additionally, some shots Not on goal are very dangerous. They hit the crossbar or the upright. They may just sail over or just wide of the goal. Back to my original point, nothing beats seeing it in person and even seeing it again.
Advanced metrics do exactly what you describe but you still need to see these games. Garbage in garbage out
Looks like Mark responding to ND's deeper play and 5 on the backline with pulling Pavlisko and leaving three in the back with a packed mid field. Interesting to see him experiment with that for the first time in the tournament but happy to see it. Pavlisko was not having a great game contributing offensively (turning the ball over) and with limited offense from ND in numbers, seems like a good move.
Glad to see Payne get some serious run. She didn't get the ball very often, but when she did, she was precise and dangerous. Hope Lynch is OK. Did anyone see her on the sideline, or was she left home? Dang, I have never been overly impressed with Flynn, but she's growing on me. She's not overly athletic, but she has a motor. When she's out there, she's going 100 mph. She reads the game pretty well. Highish soccer IQ IMO. The same can be said for Zipay, but Zipay is a little better athlete IMO. I love Robbins. Hope she's back next year. Jaelin Howell is the best HMFer we've ever had. I expect her to have a long run with the USWNT. Jody Brown makes everyone around her more dangerous, because the other team is hyperaware of where she is opening a few holes that otherwise would not be there. The game against Duke should be a doozy. Hope to watch UNC and UVA. That should be a good one. I've giving UND the edge simply because UVA has been horrible at defending corner kicks and UNC always gets lots of them. If UVA were better at defending set pieces, I would go with them.
I'd agree to the point that I think Howell will be better. I think Howell is the best midfielder in the ACC.
You can make a case for her being better offensively, but defensively it's not even close IMO. JH intercepts balls, wins 50/50s and stops runs at the goal better than Sophie. Offensively, SJ is more clever with her movements and passes, but JH has improved this part of her game tremendously. JH has become a monster in the air on corners and she has always been a monster on the 50/50's. JH is a much more physical defender. I would be shocked if JH is not a near unanimous 1st team All ACC and near unanimous MFer of the year. Julie Ertz is not Julie Ertz because of her clever subtlety on the ball, but because she is a wall protecting the defensive back line. In my best 007 impression, "I'm not sure Sophie wouldn't be better suited to another position. What will she play on the next level?" How about AMF?
Im sure all of what you say about JH is true. Not a competition, just my opinion. I have seen SJ play 6/8 and 10. I think she could play any or all of them at the next level. She reminds me a lot of Jesse Fleming. So many opinions are going to be based on how you / one would use said player. A dual 6 pivot of JH and SJ would probably be really good with a really creative player ahead.
I doubt I said that. Im guessing i said I need to see her vs better competition. This season she has performed at a high level