UNC 2024

I just watched the foul call again and on the replay I see a clear trip. The ref was close and unobscured. But of course there's only one angle.

 

Would welcome a report from anyone who saw the game.

 

The loss made me bitter so I've been dragging my feet talking about it. Sometimes I talk about how losses leave a sour taste in my mouth, but this one was bitter. It fit very nicely after I thought about it for a while.

UNC outplayed Stanford in the first half. It's relative, but against a top 10 team they moved the ball pretty well, created chances, and it felt like they were really grinding Stanford with exhaustive possession. I can nit pick a little bit about a couple of things but UNC had their chances and the refrain was going to be they were going to lament not scoring before break. I'd say the biggest nit pick that's worth mentioning is the quality of their crosses. They had a good number of chances to cross the ball from the wide areas at the end of progressive play that moved the ball about nicely, way more than than they did in the Duke game. You could count on one hand the number of times UNC managed to do anything from the wide areas of the field vs the Blue Devils, but on two of them they got good cut back crosses from the endline that created their two best chances of the game. They didn't deliver a single cut back cross vs Stanford. Did not deliver any ball to the back post.

It shouldn't have been surprising at all, and even expected, that a team as well coached and full of skilled players like Stanford was going to make adjustments and play better in the second. They did. So we had a 0-0 game in the second half that was more pitched and could have gone either way. With 20 minutes left in the game it still felt that way, it still felt like someone could execute either way and find a winner. It was ... compelling. Then it wasn't.

It's that horse that I've beaten into a pulp on twitter and here. Too narrow, too forceful, stopped playing the wingers and tried to combine through a pipeline up the field on the same axis of attack. 5, 6, 7 attacks in a row, it was the old familiar symptom that we've seen from this team, the peak of which we saw vs Duke. It's a one two punch where the offense becomes neutered and the defense is getting asked to defend against progressively longer spells of possession by Stanford. A goal against felt inevitable.

It's never felt like something the opposition was doing, either against Duke or this weekend against Stanford. It was practically the entire game vs Duke, but vs Stanford it came at arguably one of the worst moments in a game that they had otherwise played very well in. The Heels just ... go in this trance ... this mode of soccer where there's only one direction on the field and they refuse to play the way they need to play to win games this year. They don't have the depth, they don't have someone like Sentnor who is going to save them like she did constantly last year. They *must* move the ball around, they *must* use the entire width of the field, and they must be willing to down shift.

I also didn't think they were tired. Certainly Stanford put more pressure on them with better play after the break, but it's worth noting that after the goal, UNC started to play well again. They corrected themselves and even with Stanford sitting back a bit to hold on to the lead and playing smothering defense, UNC still gave me hope with how they were playing that they could potentially find an equalizer. They looked good, and that's where the credit goes to Stanford in stifling a UNC attack that was pressing and pressing the right way.

Aria Nagai has just gotten so good as the season has gone along. It feels like her fitness has exploded to superman levels in the last few games. Stanford beat her the hell up in this game (as well as Gaetino), and I really thought the official was going to give a second yellow for a silly challenge on Nagai by a player already on a yellow... but she just got a long talking to. Stanford subbed her off, and other players just kept doing it. The player that arguably should have been sent off came back late on and made the key play on the goal. Endline drive, snuck a lightly deflected ball through the legs of Elgin who was defending the drive perfectly. Just an unlucky bounce on a snatched cross that ended up with the perfect weight and direction for a spectacular touch finish against the grain at the doorstep.

It's hard to be angry at the official because I thought she was reasonable in dealing with what was a physical game, made a few mistakes here and there, but in the end she gave Stanford 3 straight yellows in the last 5 minutes of the first half for persistent offenses by the team. The TV crew were confused on each yellow, but they were focused on the individual challenges out of context of the game. I don't think the second yellow would have been harsh, but I also think just giving a talking to and not wanting to make that kind of impact on the game was reasonable.

Part of me wonders if the UNC attack has wobbled a bit as they work Olivia Thomas back into the team. We didn't really see her set up in typical way we're used to. That feels like a combination of not wanting to take Faasse off the top of the formation (for obvious reasons) but also not wanting to shift out of a formation that has been working for them. Clemson might be a good game for them to experiment with two front runners. As good as Olivia looked, she only ever seemed to be playing on the flanks ... and that's just not where you want her to be.

It also should mean that Bella Sember should probably have started her last game, at least for now. She had such a spectacular summer campaign and was oozing with confidence and ability at the start of the season ... but we're at 5 or 6 games in a row now that she has declined considerably and has consistently been one of the players making the wrong decisions in regard to how narrow they play when they falter. Her shooting ability, which once upon a time seemed so lethal and dangerous, has vanished.

It's a loss at the end of a long road trip against a top 10 team. UNC mostly played well and it can easily identify what went wrong. If you asked me where I would prefer to take a loss in the back half of ACC play (and I'd much rather take a loss so this team doesn't think it's gonna go the rest of the way undefeated) it would have been on this road trip. Needed to beak LOU, need to beat Clemson, and beating Florida State and Duke will confirm that when this team is healthy and playing the right way they're more than just the "mathematical" #1 team in the country.

 

The only thing I’d disagree with was that it appeared to me UNC did tire and Stanford didn’t change tactics in the 2nd half. I looked at both teams’ Thursday games. UNC had 7 field players play the full 90, Stanford had 1, their CB Evans. Of the remaining field players, Bhuta had 73 minutes, and everyone else less than 70. UNC used 3 subs each game this weekend. That’s a tough way to go through a season where games are closely scheduled and free subbing is allowed.

 

I'm okay with most of this tactical analysis, but singling out individual players like Bella Sember for "wrong decisions" and failed "shooting ability" is depressing and arrogant. You don't know what's been going on with her or for that matter the rest of the team to be so godlike or even invested. You went after Gagne earlier. These are not pros. The Heels have the highest RPI the country, and they're still a top five team in the toughest conference.

 

They're also not children. Heeldoc you have a history of responding to posts, mine and others, that are critical of players. I'm not inclined to discourage you from being protective of the players, but suggesting we can't point out when players are struggling at all is over the top helicopter parent stuff.

Claire Gagne & Bella Sember both have aspirations of being pros. They are both good enough to be professionals. When I note when players drop off or are struggling, that isn't me "going after them", that's silly and it kind of feels like you're implying that I have an ulterior motive. If I consistently single out a player that's playing well do you also think there's some reason behind it beyond observation of their good play?

... and what do you mean about godlike or invested? Why am I not allowed to be emotionally invested in this team, or do you think I'm invested in some other way? What powers do my comments on this board have? Even with my comments being respectful and perfectly appropriate, if players, coaches, or whoever are allowing themselves to be influenced by some arm chair coach who enjoys speculating about them on the internet ... well, here's another opinion that might upset you ... that says more about them than it does about me.

I get that players and parents and coaches might read this board, but I write my compliments or criticisms with that in mind, and with as much respect as possible. A lesson hard learned in the past when I first joined the board. How would you have preferred that I wrote, if at all, that I think Bella Sember wasn't going to be the starter because of a decline in her performance? I probably could have articulated better that the entire point was that with Olivia Thomas coming back *someone* in the current 11 will have to give way, but would that have been enough for you? Would that have made the criticism "OK"? Maybe if I had just not mentioned Bella Sember at all and posted a starting 11? Let people read between the lines and form their own conclusions about why I think she's not in it?

Hey guys here's my starting 11 for Clemson please don't ask my why because the answer might make you uncomfortable. Thomas and Faasse up top with Ullmark hovering behind them, Dahlien and Dominguez on the flanks and Nagai & Dellarose at the 6. Hopefully Gaetino is healthy but I thought Mara looked good in relief. Alvarez and Elgin. Gagne.

 

I wonder how the professionalization of college sports, especially within the Power 4 conferences including the ACC, relates to what is appropriate and what athletes should be willing and prepared to put up with in terms of public discussions about how they are doing.

 

No, Babs, you still haven't got that players and parents do read these boards--it's just that no one's called you on it lately. Coaches are paid to take criticism. And taking criticism is something you can't do yourself without whining about it. You and I are not that important, but the players are, and young women have enough challenges to their self esteem.

 

There needs to be a place where opinions can be expressed about college players and their performance. This is that place. It isn’t the town-crier out on the street for all to hear. You have to make an effort to find these opinions. Disagree. Make another argument. But don’t shut down those willing to express their opinions. I made this point on the Stanford thread last year. If you only want to hear positive news, stick to the press releases and posts from the schools and conferences. If you know a young adult that plays and would be bothered if someone criticized them, go no further than those sources.

Also, all these young adults have heard much worse from their coaches. They’ll be fine, and there’s not much for them to gain from reading these opinions.

Haven’t mens’ football and basketball been dealing with this type of criticism in the news for years?

 

One approach each contributor should think about is to not write something on a site like this unless you would be willing to say the same thing to the player’s face.

 

on the surface this feels like a nice approach, but I'm having trouble understanding the circumstances of such a conversation with a player where we're speculating without insight with them. When would it ever come up in a face to face conversation with a player where we're talking about who a healthy returning starter replaces in the starting 11 ... and how would you ever respond to that players face when she furrows her brow and demands to know why she's not included?

That doesn't seem like a reasonable or realistic way to approach discussing tactics and strategy on this board. A LOT is said in this forum that is both considered well above acceptable but also in no way would be repeated to a players (or coaches) face if it somehow came up in a conversation with them.

 

I don't need to be paid to be willing take constructive criticism. You still haven't responded with how I could have written that better. All you've done is "call me out", called me names, and now implied that I'm whining.

 

That's good life advice, to be sure, whether on the internet or standing around that mythical water cooler (if it still even exists.)

I am not a very critical person, about anything. If you saw the state of my car, you'd know there's a lot I let slide. Other than being sad about a loss, I tend to not wail about refereeing and I'm pretty sure I've never booed a player in my life. They're all people and I try to be kind.

But other than that, why should anyone care about whether players or their families come here to read this? Sport is big business in this country, heck the whole world, and anyone who is playing at this level is voluntarily putting themselves out there for "inspection." Any player or parent who chooses to come here, or reddit or ESPN or twitter, well, they have to know that there will be criticism. People who want to live their lives in public ought to be able to handle the publicity.

I find, to some degree, criticism of female athletes to be positive. It means that more people are taking women's pursuits more seriously and that they are treating women the same way they treat men. Caitlin Clark is an obvious lightning rod, but then so were LeBron James and Kyrie Irving before her. I write for a Virginia fan site and I cover both men's and women's sports. Since it's a fan site, it's pretty homerific, but since I'm not overly critical, it is a good fit for me. I try to give the women the same level of thought, analysis and critique as I give the men. I don't know if Babs is active on the mens college soccer BS forum, I but I suspect he'd have the same commenting parameters for them as for the women. Babs' posting here is a positive, even when I don't agree with him. 25 years ago, no one cared about women's soccer. Including me. 1999 was pretty cool, but I only came to it because I'm a soccer guy and top flight soccer was still a rarity on tv in those days.

 

Getting back to the Stanford game ...

I don't know if Stanford changed tactics at halftime, but they did make some kind of adjustment ... even if it isn't obvious what it was. The results were obvious however, especially in regard to Andrea Kitahata. I felt like UNC completely stifled her in the first half, and she barely got on the ball. When she did, it was usually pretty wide. In the second half she seemed to be picking up the ball in much more dangerous positions on a consistent basis, both during and not the bad sequence of play from UNC.

I wasn't trying to suggest that UNC didn't get tired, they almost certainly did. I was more trying to explain why they had that 10-15 minute stretch where they started playing so narrow and stopped playing their game. I do not think fatigue was the reason behind it for two reasons: 1) right after the Stanford goal, they went right back to playing "good" soccer again, relatively speaking, moving side to side and looking for the right opportunities to attack. 2) They played the "bad" soccer from kickoff in the game against Duke, where fatigue isn't excuse. They also started the same way the first 15 minutes or so vs Wake Forest and, in an ironic twist, "woke up" and started playing better after Kate Faasse's goal against the run of play. The same stretch of "bad" soccer that I'm referencing in Stanford also occurred at the start of both the Duke and Wake games.

Certainly the "bad" soccer made them more fatigued and made things hard to recover from after they went down, but it does not seem to me that fatigue is the culprit for these inexplicable stretches of soccer where UNC forgets themselves.

 

Not sure what you mean when you say that “anyone who is playing at this level is voluntarily putting themselves out there for ‘inspection.’” Yes, of course, if you participate in any sport at any level the people who watch may have opinions about how you play. The way you phrase it, though, sounds like anyone who has decided to compete at the collegiate level has calculated and chosen that they are willing to subject themselves to intense scrutiny by anonymous and sometimes mean-spirited critics who can write something the whole world can see. Maybe that kind of attention is unavoidable in the world we now live in, but I wouldn’t characterize it as a “voluntary” choice. As fans we need to be cautious about how we treat players; we don’t want to create an environment where players are scared away from the game because of the abuse they can anticipate.

This is not meant as a critique of what you and babs post, it’s a more general observation.

 

I suspect people don't really need a recap of a 6-0 performance against Clemson. UNC responded well to their loss at Stanford and we didn't see the "bad" Tar Heels show up at all tonight. They still tried to pick apart the middle in combination, and had some mixed success doing it, but it never felt forced and there was a good balance about it. They went over the top, they combined through the middle, they went out wide to the flanks. We were all reminded again what a weapon Olivia Thomas is with her back to goal, and she had some lovely plays cutting to the endline as well. We said Maddie Dahlien's name *A LOT* in this game. She earned two PK's, scored one of them, created an absolute metric ton of chances on 1v1 wins driving to the endline, and made some pretty good defensive plays when Clemson was still reasonably in reach. A lot of "new names" from a variety of perspectives tonight ... first career goals, first goals of the season, and first goals on their return from injury.

 

And, of course, today was Anson Dorrance Day celebrating one of the great coaches of all time -- and their players naturally, as many of the greatest were present-- as Dorrance himself pointed out in the booth and who he gives so much credit to. A spectacular career!

 

I don’t know the game well enough to analyze as thoughtfully as babs and others, but here are some less polished observations: (1) Wasn’t close enough to see it, but Gaetino’s clearance off the line was big, the game would’ve been altogether different if Clemson had scored there; (2) Speaking of Gaetino, she seems to make several remarkable long passes across the field each game; (3) The first quarter or so of the game was a joy to watch, splendid ball movement; (4) Nagai, Ullmark, and Dellarose are all so skilled at receiving the ball in traffic, turning, and finding space, especially impressive is Nagai’s ability to handle the ball when crowded; (5) Had no idea before this year how fast Faasse is, and she really is opportunistic with scoring chances; (6) Speaking of opportunistic, Alvarez certainly has taken advantage of the playing time she’s been given, seems really solid; (7) Anticipate even more creativity as Dahlien, Thomas, Faasse, and Ullmark get to spend more time playing together.

 

Having been very critical of the 2023 edition of UNC women's soccer, especially the Coaching and the Goaltending, it has been a pleasure watching the 2024 edition which in my opinion has been extraordinary considering the amount of departures either to the Pros or Transfers to other programs. This team was pretty much gutted after the BYU fiasco and the resignation of Anson Dorrance, and I would suggest all of you who are not satisfied with the product on the field these days, read the earlier messages on this forum bemoaning our chances of even making the ACC tournament in 2024. Somebody is doing something very right with this group for them to be as competitive as they have been and playing with the spirit that lacked last year. This is a fun group who are giving the most of what they have to offer and no matter what becomes of their final record, I much more enjoyed watching them then last years group. All of you who thought this team would be 14-2 at this point in the schedule please list your names.

 

I'm not so sure this is the kind of criticism that's being talked about, but even if it was, I don't think we should be gate keeping fans, long term or otherwise. It was a dramatic, normal DI program shattering offseason that UNC somehow survived with a decent core, and it would be completely natural for even the most optimistic of fans to think an ACC regular season title, ACC tournament title, and an NCAA title were ... unlikely. Kudos to you if that's where you were.

I don't know where I was, I think maybe some where in the middle. Low expectations, but also the understanding that if Nahas can get them to play the right way, then the right pieces are there for them to do well. That was even without me realizing that Faasse was going to come in and be the rock star that she has been... *or* that Gagne and the defense would gel this good.

 

Does my computer get to take a bow? Its pre-season predicted ratings had UNC at 14 W, 0L, 2T at this point in the season, with Stanford just barely missing being a loss.