UNC - 2025

I went in thinking a draw would be a good result. Both teams looked messy to me from the stands, but there were a lot of distractions with the physicality and the game calling. I love going but sometimes find it hard to focus with the crowd. Half the Courage team was sitting nearby and I got a bit googly-eyed. Pretty sure I saw HAO there too. I'll probably watch it on the telly tonight. Regardless, a 0-1 loss to this team isn't a bad result. From a position/skillset, FSU is the team that UNC wants to be.

 

I was only able to watch the second half (stupid ESPN+). FSU was the better side, especially being on the road. Not a clean game to watch, lots of starts and stops, fouls, turnovers, bad touches, passes not connecting….but that’s what you get when two athletic teams are playing similar styles.
—Dudley was a problem with few answers, the difference in the game (and Im not just talking about the goal).
—Not sure Fasse is at the same level, she didn’t look exceedingly dangerous at any moment. — Good to see the Ref card FSU goalie for time wasting, she looked fed up with both sides
— BTW- what is a handling call in today’s game…Im so confused
— FSU tackle in the box was not a foul, sooooo close, but she got that one right

I was hoping for a more deliberate game but instead got a street fight. Good result for FSU, UNC goes home frustrated

 

I guess it depends on where you draw the line between "dirty" and "PrOfeSsiOnAlisM"

 

you didn't quote me but the wording made me wonder... are you asking what I meant by "handling" or are you asking what the standards for handball are?

I'm sure different officials have different standards, but I can at least appreciate how consistent this one was... both her definition of what hand to ball is vs ball to hand, as well as her very loose interpretation of what a "natural" position is. It lead to lord knows how many unanswered shouts for handball on both sides of the stadium tonight.

as for the tackle, I don't think it's right to give the FSU defender any credit here. She lunged and did not get the ball. If Malsom had stayed on her feet and taken that contact, it's a PK 10 times out of 10.

 

I assumed that the FSU defender did get the ball, and the review showed that? (Personally I found the big screen reviews hard to make out in terms of contact, but I did think they made clear Malsom was already heading to ground before any contact.) If there was no contact, it should have been an FSU goal kick.

It was a physically competitive game, and there were fouls, but nothing I thought was dangerous, and we fouled them more than they fouled us. One of their players got a yellow card for dissent, but then Nahas got a yellow card for dissent too.

There was definitely some FSU time-wasting, but that's pretty standard across professional soccer, and the ref did a good job of nipping it in the bud. What was unusual was that the ref went for drinks breaks rather than getting off the field players who presented as injured. Since the clock was stopped, that didn't affect time, but it did disrupt the game's momentum. The dribbling into a corner is frustrating anti-soccer, but we do it too in key cup games.

 

Why the dramatics from the UNC coach? Poor loser, not a good coach, or just a jerk?

 

Like most coaches, including the FSU ones last night, Nahas advocates for refereeing decisions after incidents, which inevitably means disagreeing with on field calls. This is pretty standard. I was at the other side of the field when he got booked so I didn't hear what he said then, but presumably he crossed the line from acceptable advocacy to dissent. I don't think it's realistic to expect people to always stay the right side of the line, especially when passions are riding high. And a certain amount of passion is good for the game.

I think another part of the context is that the ref had decided to err (I think reasonably) on the side of not calling fouls for a lot of physical challenges that other refs might have called as fouls. When this happens, it's normal to experience it from the perspective of one's own team and remember the moments when your team might have got a free kick more than vice versa. Plus FSU were bigger and stronger than UNC so a more lenient refereeing stance to physical challenges favored FSU. After an hour or so of this happening, I think it's understandable that a coach thinks a lot of calls should have been given their team's way and is expressing some frustration. It's part of human nature to tend to see these things in a somewhat biased way.

I have never met him but the players seem to love him and he comes across well in the media, so I'm inclined to think he's a good guy. his frustrations sometimes boiling over isn't going to change that. I don't think there's a question about whether he's a good coach given he won a natty in his first season as main coach.

 

I got spoiled with MKs demeanor, never showing emotion. The guy last night just seemed a bit much and BP was trying to calm him down from the Telly observation. Both coaches seemed very familiar with one another. I am pro keep your calm and move on!

 

The standards for handballs. I watch lots of games and there is very little consistency on what is and what isn’t. I was watching Clemson v Cal the other day and, in the box, a ball hits the defenders thigh and jumps up to an outstretched arm. Not natural position and it affected the path of the ball… after review it was deemed not a handball. I see balls hit arms in the middle of the field in what looks natural but it’s called.

Im a referee myself (certified US Soccer, club stuff). and I can tell you that everyone looks at these things different. It seems that the more direction they give to determine what is and isn’t a handling offense the more confusing it gets. Are hands behind the back in the box “natural”, nobody moves or runs like that.

None of this affected the game, just an observation. Referees have a difficult job, especially in an intense environment and two athletic teams. She was consistent, not judging her aptitude. I really respect anyone that has risen to the level of reffing a game at that level.

 

I hate how this has become the standard instead of an option. I'm all for "letting them play" when the game is flowing smoothly and without risking of harm to the players.

Does anybody beleive last nights game "flowed" well enough that the referee should have thought "gee, this game is being played so well, I shouldn't interfere."?

Their supposed to protect the players and the integrity of the game, not their reputations or the possible entertainment value of an overly physical game.

 

Okay I wrote that and as soon as I posted that I realized I was going to need to clarify somethings to avoid misunderstanding.

First, from the perspective of physical play, I really liked the officiating last night. I've re-watched the game and it has re-affirmed my thoughts I had live that she did a really good job. She found the right balance between what to allow to keep the game going in the moment and what to call because she saw it as problematic. On the replays I found myself agreeing with nearly every single call and non-call made. The handballs are a different issue, but even there, credit is due for being as consistent as she was.

I blast the officials for this all the time so I want to make sure I do the same when they get it right. Nicole Green got it right. There are few officials I recognize and Nicole is not one of them, so I'm hoping the Box Score is giving the correct credit. She has set a really high bar in my mind and I hope to see her again at more UNC games.

I don't know if recognizing when a game/team is getting too physical is easier than recognizing when a team is systematically time wasting and trying to slow the game down. It also just doesn't happen enough at the level we saw last night for me to know if Nicole picked up on it as well as she should have. It was ... obnoxious ... and to the extreme even for FSU. They were doing it on every restart, every throw in, every substitution. It wasn't just after they took the lead either. They were doing it all through out the first half as well. This was a full game effort because breaking it up into long stops and starts appeared to dramatically improve FSU's composure and quality.

It doesn't feel like Nicole really cracked down on it until late in the second half, but again I don't know if it's something that would be easy for her to recognize ... or if it was something her hands were tied in dealing with.

 

I thought there was a lot of embellishment from players and the referee was not buying it. As a neutral I thought she did a good job.

 

I'll take your word for it — this isn't something I tend to notice, and my experience of the first half left me happy for the clock to be run down! Setting aside time-wasting when they were ahead, I do wonder whether slowing the game down into a lot of breaks ultimately would have benefited them. The game was played at such a high level of intensity that these are chances for recovery. They had a deep bench, who collectively played 248 minutes in comparison to our bench's 66 minutes. So our starters could have ended up gassed with quicker restarts. I am impressed by all our players that lasted 90 minutes at that intensity, and were still sprinting at the end... especially the non-defenders, Pennie, Faasse, Ullmark, and Devey.

To be charitable to the ref, perhaps these intensity / recovery considerations were why she went for the drink breaks rather than getting outfield players off the field when they were getting medical attention. (Obviously, you can't do that with a goalkeeper, and it was certainly curious for a goalkeeper to develop cramp given the position is not well known for how much running it involves. I wonder if this factored into the decision to give us the indirect free kick for time-wasting soon after.)

 

With my G&G sunglasses on I honestly didn't notice any time wasting that I haven't witnessed watching men's and women's soccer, Premier, La Liga, NWSL the last 35 years. I felt the ref had a quick trigger on most everything, yes she did get the non PK right. Suffice it say that referee let the 2 head coaches take her off her game, and both were acting like twelve year olds.

 

Well. That was a roller coaster.

I gave Nahas the benefit of the doubt when I saw that they were going back to the 3 back in this game. Perhaps he thought the opponent or the circumstances would benefit from it. I'm a big fan of the 3 back when you're playing a pitched battle and giving up a lot of possession against an opponent who likes to possess.

It's not how the game started. UNC dominated the midfield and enjoyed significant possession, but their attack in the final third felt one dimensional and hampered. They felt unbalanced and unsettled despite passing it well and winning possession back from ND quickly.

Then they turned it over in a terrible position, at the pivot in midfield with most of UNC forward of the ball. I admit I didn't know a whole lot about this ND team and what their strengths and weakness were ... but I'm finding Nahas' decision to use a 3 back against a team like this ... a bit infuriating and unforgivable. A 3 back against a team that doesn't possess a lot but instead likes to blister up field quickly, a team that likes to press the issue, that likes to force turnovers, likes to use a pair of gifted front runners to pull rabbits out of their hats. You don't use 3 backs against a team like that... especially if you're used to using a 4 back.

The Tar Heel defense took a pretty significant step back tonight. They were discombobulated defending the fast break. That's how they gave up the first goal. Didn't communicate or trust each other for another. Ball watching on two crosses where they *should* have had a significant advantage tonight... in the air. How much of that was ND? How much of that was UNC once again playing a new defense this deep into the season.

That *has* to be the end of that. It has to be. The defense is supposed to be the thing that settles first and you stop messing with it unless injury or the like forces the issue. Nahas looks like he's still trying to figure out. It's way too late to try to be finding your "best" defense.

The third goal was a gut punch and was probably the one that cost UNC a result the most. Aven Alvarez took a heavy touch towards goal and both her and Gundry panicked and raced to play it. They both actually won their respective races to the ball ... but then they collided with each other and had the ball bounce away from them. Feels like it was just a mistake in communication ... one of those players has to call the other off.

I think maybe Aven Alvarez was sick. The play stopped for her in the first half where I think she threw up or was about to throw up on the field. She certainly didn't look like her usual self.

The win against Alabama is starting to lose it's significance. UNC doesn't have a quality win anymore as the Tide slide. I'm not about to suggest that UNC is going to miss the NCAA tournament, but a competitive seeding is out of the question unless the Tar Heels go on a run and pretty much win out, including the ACC tournament ... if they can squeeze in.

Championship hangover indeed.

 

Heels hung in there, barely, against an Irish team that looks to be the best attacking team in the game by a fairly wide margin. ND is quick, a lot of team athleticism, and they win a lot of balls in the midfield that jump-starts their dynamic transition game with Roy and two excellent forwards, starting with Engle, who is a goal-scoring sensation, along with the talented Chukwu. Throw in UNC's Thomas--who had a great goal--and the match had three of the best forwards in the game.

After clawing back to within1 goal late in the first half, the UNC keeper's ill-advised pass in front of her goal gifted the Irish a 3rd goal that effectively ended UNC's chances. The heels simply couldn't generate enough quality chances. They scored three goals but all were individual moments of excellence as opposed to team play. ND keeper was incredibly lucky not have been called for a PK foul in the first half. An entertaining match.

 

The positives I saw were mainly at the individual level - Malsom's technique for both of hers was brilliant. Thomas's goal was superb too and I was pleased to see her manage more minutes than usual.

We've got back to back losses with three at the back but these came against our hardest opponents. The five goals we conceded were three headers and two goals from our errors losing possession in key areas. You could argue maybe that dedicated full backs could have cut out the crosses for two of the headers. I wonder if Nahas's plan is to use different formations as the opponents require. I wondered if Pennie starting at number ten was based around a plan to use her energy when pressing the ND defense? If so then all the long balls through the middle could make sense as an attempt to activate that press when ND weren't settled. Needless to say if this was the strategy, it didn't work and I struggled to work out an alternative strategy.

I am proud that we have an identity as an attacking team that plays on the front foot but I think on current performances we can't expect a string of results against the top teams with our current approach. An alternative would be more conservative - eg to commit more bodies to the middle of the field rather than further up (eg drop our number ten back to a number eight), with the associated risk that we draw games that we should win - in other words to play more like a top twenty team than a top five

 

Never did I ever think I would watch a UNC team get outcoached, then this season happened. Maybe UNC would better off sending out flyers for a vacancy? And to be fair and balanced, you all still have more talent than 99 percent of the country. Keep your heads up!

 

Malsom may be gone, too? Rosters should be out soon I would think.

 

I agree that, talented as our incoming players are, they don't have the collective experience that our outgoing players had (and Armstrong was an absolute phenom). Still, in terms of comparisons with last year, this year's FSU Notre Dame losses are comparable to last year's back to back losses to Stanford and FSU—performances that didn't inspire much hope. Of course, last year, we had the return of Armstrong (and eventually Shores) to come. Going forward, I hope that we can improve our defending against headers from crosses, and that Dellarose can soon manage 90 minutes again. I don't think it was a coincidence that FSU's goal came after she subbed off.

 

I wonder if moving Alvarez to central defense aims to make use of the fact she seems our best header of the ball, given our vulnerability to crosses? Munson is playing aggressively high up the pitch when we have possession.

Is Ullmark a false nine? She seems to be roaming and dropping quite deep.

I like the Dellarose Pennie partnership in defensive mid. And after last match, Malsom deserves her chance further up.

In general the changes seen smart responses to the problems we had in the last two games. Still, quite late in the season to still be experimenting so much