That is just textbook Violent Conduct from Braun and Tufts is lucky not to be playing with 10 men

Quote from: PaulNewman on December 07, 2019, 12:44:48 PM
Amherst versus Tufts for [another] national championship.....the only silver lining I can grab hold of is that one of them is gonna lose.

Great final match-up and maybe one of the best in years....huge programs and of course both NESCACs; equal foes; neither intimidated, surprised or inexperienced with respect to what the other can and will throw at them; physicality, size, speed, and talent; dreaded rivals; star coaches...

I am sure the main reason I'm not a fan of either is that they are just too good.  I think what Amherst has done with 13 (?) straight Sweet 16s or better, a national title, and now another final almost matches what Tufts has accomplished since 2014. 

I would have thought I'd be cheering for Amherst.  For at least several years I was a skeptic regarding the critics of the Amherst style/behavior, but I've caved.  5 yellows yesterday and what seemed like 10 or more intentional studs up tackles.  And that pre-game pacing by Serpone?  Wow.  I'm not sure whether to be disgusted or worried.  Don't think I've ever seen anything quite like that from a coach in any sport at any level, unless maybe a crazed parent coach of his kid's U8 or U10 town team.  And then you listen to him at a press conference and it's like how can this be the same guy....obviously very smart, very articulate, and at least a talented thespian at appearing gracious and super-complimentary of his opponents and of course his team.  His sideline behavior looks compulsive, but he also has heard the critics long ago and he's smart enough and insightful enough to know how he must come across, and he either doesn't care, is strategic, or truly can't help himself. 

And Tufts strikes me as just a little (or a lot) too smug and entitled when it comes to these national title runs (and national titles).  Just a phenomenal streak of success that seemingly came out of nowhere.  I hope Shapiro does go to BC or Harvard because just not sure how much more Jumbo happiness I can absorb.

As for the game...I'm taking Tufts.  Going back and forth on 2-1, 3-2 and 3-1, but I'm gonna guess 3-1.  Why?  Tufts is one of the only teams in the country (at least outside the NESCAC) that will have zero fear of Amherst  and will need no time to adjust.  Tufts will not care if Amherst jacks up the physicality and may even relish the Mammoths getting chippy.  Tufts is not going to be punked, and I actually think that is a game Amherst will lose if they  are counting on how sky-high they can get because Tufts is bigger (and maybe badder) than them.  Tufts also will know better than anyone how to attempt stopping Giammattei, and they will remember letting him loose in OT last time.  I favor Tufts because you have no idea where their goals are going to come from....and that's because they have a ton of guys who are dangerous and can score.  Much harder to defend.  The wild cards are Amherst's frosh sensation and Lind.  The latter almost pulled off a gorgeous back-heel goal but apparently Tufts has a special place in their heart for Lind, so we'll see.  Tufts is so good missing Paoletta has barely been mentioned (except for Mr.Right noting that he's out).

And then there's the flip throw. 

Should be a good one....I'll be miserable either way....about like a UNC-Duke national bball final for me.

Concur with all of this

Tufts v. Amherst is a fun game between two good teams with very different styles of play. And, as importantly, it's been referee'd quite well, so the game has been mostly focused on the soccer.

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 12, 2019, 10:15:11 AM
Wesleyan has already moved their game v Bates to the turf,,,,NO of course not the nice Football Field turf but the Field Hockey field...garbage even if expected with a Football guy being AD. Still Wesleyan Football is playing a night game tonight and it would have been nice to squeeze a Men's Soccer game on that turf in the early afternoon.

Think they upgraded the turf there a few years ago

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 03, 2019, 01:24:04 PM
Reading the recap of the Wes v Tufts match it sounds like Wes scored on a quick counter from their defensive 3rd. This is the 2nd game in a row where Wesleyan has done this. They hammered Clark the other day and scored on a 10 second blitzkrieg up the field that was all started by GK Lowen who did not start last night. This is no coincidence as I am sure after a few years of unimaginative attacking futbol, Wheeler had to get his guys more options and chances. Quick counters especially against Tufts is a great way to get more opportunities before Tufts can set up defensively. Combine more chances with more talent than last season and the same sound defensive structure should bode well this season.

Wesleyan has a long history of springing upsets on Amherst in the Serpone era but also have been susceptible to a complete smackdown. Wesleyan will not have the luxury of playing to feet on Amherst field at least not like they have been the past few games..Amherst will press the crap out them and force tons of giveaways because they would overwhelm Wesleyan IMO. Wesleyan MUST switch it up play extremely conservative 1st Half and whack the ball out of the back, stay home for the most part and get into the Half at 0-0. Then you come out the first 10 minutes and play the exact same way and make Amherst comfortable in the style they are playing against. Hopefully, it is still 0-0 and then by the 60th minute after Amherst starters have a little heavier legs get ur starters in the game and switch it up. Attack with ur wingbacks on occasion, get the ball back on the ground, switch to a more attacking system, etc etc something to get Amherst out of sorts. This is when u have to find a goal before Amherst gets back in rhythm. Probably have 5-10 min. Then hold them off for a furious 20 minutes.

I am just not seeing it on Amherst home field and a clinching of Little 3 title. This game is over early

I actually disagree. if you can play out of Amherst's initial pressure, there's a ton of space available to exploit, particularly on the switch. I tend not to be an advocate of possession for possession's sake, but against Amherst you have to be willing to play backwards more often and shift the ball side to side, as though it's just a possession game. And then attack the spaces that open up as their press becomes more disjointed. I think if you try to play Amherst's game, you're going to lose even if you keep it close for awhile.

Also, here is the sequence that lead to the goal (~55 seconds) and then below that is the actual Wesleyan goal (~10 seconds). The long clip is a nice distillation of how both teams want to play, I think.

Quote from: d4_Pace on October 02, 2019, 08:28:14 PM
Tufts up 1-0 at the half on a goal from another guy forced to take on a depth role despite his talent Derek Enge.

I have been really impressed with Wesleyan. They have kept the ball on the ground and consistently played sharp combinations in their own half. In fact, their ability to break the press forced Shapiro to switch from the 3-5-2 about 15 minutes in.  I really respect them not sitting in but playing their game with no fear against Tufts. Let's see if they can pull off the hardest thing to do in d3 soccer. Get a result from behind against Tufts. Something that hasn't happened in over 3 years.

Fun game. Wesleyan has two turf fields now and should take every opportunity to not play on Jackson Field

Quote from: blooter442 on October 01, 2019, 09:12:01 AM

Quote from: The_View_From_732 on September 30, 2019, 10:24:54 PM
There's a difference between effective and most effective, though. "Direct" vs. "tiki-taka" is a false choice; soccer isn't that simple or that binary. Anyways, I think the problems most people have with Amherst are less about what style of play they use and more about how they handle themselves as people -- when it comes down to it. Tufts has had lots of recent success, and I don't think the reason they get less vitriol has much to do with the fact that they can play "prettier" soccer at times.

I agree that there are a number of other tactics and approaches in between (for example, how aggressive is the press? Who does the pressing? Do your wingbacks provide width, or is it the wide forwards? etc.) Unfortunately those are the terms that tend to be used to describe polar opposites.

This, too, may be simplistic, but I think what also needs to be analyzed in the context of tactics is whether or not a team prefers to play on the front foot (attacking) or soak up pressure and counter (defensive). In that sense, you could actually consider Amherst to be relatively progressive, as they are often on the attack and tend to press all around the pitch rather than soak up pressure. Where I get irked, though, is that upon winning possession they seem to thump the ball forward at first instance, and usually it's a long ball that goes right into the box.

I do get the statistical idea about there being X% of a chance of a goal when it goes into the box — Klopp says an effective counterpress can be "the most effective No. 10" and what I think he means is that the probability of success is usually higher when the ball is won further up the field, as the team is less likely to have set its shape — but there's a difference between winning the ball and playing it to feet (whether a striker making a run through the middle, an outside back making a run down the flank, etc.) rather than just lumping it high and into the box and having your 6'6" guy bludgeon the center back out of the way.

All of this. Co-sign.

And while we are on this general topic, I've been thinking about long throw-ins a bunch. Unlike corners, where there can be a fair amount of variation in routines to get players open -- you can use subtle picks and screens, there are obviously all sorts of short corner routines to get a more efficient chance off a corner -- every long throw-in is the same thing: there's a huge scrum around the 6-yard box and then the two biggest guys on each team stand there and body each other for position and then jump and someone gets lucky. Obviously for some of the bigger teams in the conference this is fine, because their big trees happen to be bigger and stronger than opposing keepers, but every team approaches long throws the exact same way -- and there just has to be a better way. I don't think long throws are necessarily a problem, but idk I want to see some team try something interesting out of one of these

Quote from: EB2319 on September 30, 2019, 09:00:37 PM
I doubt there's a player (or parent) who wouldn't say their u19 club team would feast on many of these college teams. Anyway, I don't begrudge teams that play direct.  It can be effective and you can win lots of games, and after all, the goal of the game is to put the round thing in the rectangle more often than your opponent. But that doesn't mean I need to like it, or enjoy watching it.

Of note is that I've yet to meet a former college player who said "I have such fond memories of playing the right way in college" and I've never heard the 35yr old weekend warrior brag about how they strung together 12 one-touch passes in college. Rather, they remember winning conferences and fighting for a national championship.

There's a difference between effective and most effective, though. "Direct" vs. "tiki-taka" is a false choice; soccer isn't that simple or that binary. Anyways, I think the problems most people have with Amherst are less about what style of play they use and more about how they handle themselves as people -- when it comes down to it. Tufts has had lots of recent success, and I don't think the reason they get less vitriol has much to do with the fact that they can play "prettier" soccer at times.

Quote from: d4_Pace on September 30, 2019, 06:05:52 PM
I think that "direct" soccer is the overwhelming trend in all levels of college soccer and it mainly comes down to the rules. College soccer has different rules than at any other level so the game is played differently. My allowing essentially unlimited subs, teams are able to cycle through fresh players at will. This allows teams to hyper press for almost the full 90 minutes. Something not possible in a traditional match. With such effective presses it becomes a safer choice to bypass the midfield and start your own press then to try to play out. This is doubly true if you don't have players quite talented enough to play out of pressure.

When it comes to the NESCAC, Amherst was the clear driver of this trend. They see soccer as a numbers game where each time the ball is in the box there is an X% chance of it leading to a goal. The more times it's in the box the better chance of scoring. If your team is bigger and more athletic than your percentage is greater at each turn. This approach forced other teams to adapt and is now being replicated my other teams, as the conference's rosters add more size.

Echoing the other points made on here, this is definitely something where it's more true of NESCAC games than NESCAC teams, and it's especially true in a game where Amherst is involved. Now, in fairness, a lot of top-level soccer has trended in the direction of "pressing and counter-pressing high up the field, winning second balls, attacking quickly and directly in transition, and creating advantages off of set pieces." Look no further than what Klopp has done at Dortmund and Liverpool and to how the philosophy of the Red Bull-owned clubs has led to clear success across the globe. I don't think playing "direct" and/or a game in transition is necessarily bad soccer. There's an art in gaming those moments to the benefit of your team. It's when teams literally just "kick and run" without a clear goal or set of tactics behind it where playing direct gets a bad rap. And obviously college soccer rules contribute to games where are both teams are just running at each other all game and playing bumper cars.

For Amherst, everything they do from who they recruit to acting like barely potty-trained toddlers on the sidelines, feeds into the kind of style they want to play. And it's hard to knock it too much, given their success. More programs could take a lesson from making sure their entire culture is aligned to maximize their success on the field. Amherst's particular culture is obviously toxic, but it's effective because they are all-in on it.  But, I think they are, like, 20% less dangerous than they could be if they were better able to recognize moments to actually play, and I think teams who are willing to be a bit more patient on the ball can find gaps in between their press. Lofting the ball into the penalty area as many times as possible actually isn't super efficient, but Amherst makes up for that by who they recruit. Crosses and headers and shots with lots of defenders in the way aren't great, all things equal, which is why they could be served to actually use their talent advantages to break teams down more often than they do.

Better and more confident referees would go a long way towards keeping Amherst in line from game-to-game, but I'm not holding my breath on that front. Really, the conference and athletic directors should've reined in Serpone's anger issues and general gross behavior a long time ago because it bleeds into his coaching staff, and his players, and Amherst fans, and scoreboard operators who feel they have license to curse out opponents on the sidelines (true story). It's sports, it's competitive competition, it shouldn't be all puppies and rainbows, but their behavior is embarrassing for the conference -- and we shouldn't all have to feel icky after witnessing an Amherst soccer game on a Saturday afternoon.

Quote from: Mr.Right on September 29, 2019, 03:14:25 PM
5 minutes into 2nd half Williams Justin Adams makes a bonehead challenge with a booking already on his sheet gets sent off and Williams is down to 10 for 40 minutes. That just handcuffs his Head Coach for the rest of the game. I would be surprised if he sees action next game.That should be doghouse type stuff as to me its selfish. You know you have a Yellow you need to focus and stay disciplined. A benching is sometimes the only way kids learn.

true, though by definition, he misses the next game, right? Or is there some weird rule about double yellows at the college level that I'm unaware of?

Must be a frustrating half for Williams where they mostly played fine. In fact, they were able to slice up Amherst a couple times and had their chances. But then, they end up down 2-0 because Amherst is Amherst. I'm not sure I change a whole lot in the second half if I'm Williams; the chances will be there, they will just have to grind their way back.

Quote from: SlideTackle on September 23, 2019, 04:55:58 PM

Quote from: The_View_From_732 on September 23, 2019, 03:55:07 PM

Quote from: SlideTackle on September 23, 2019, 09:57:53 AM
Great analysis! I think it's right on. There's a tendency at Wes to dribble down the sideline and smack the ball towards the middle of the box hoping (key word, hoping) for some connection in the middle, which is a lot to ask. I've seen some runs from attacking players but they generally don't get the ball back. It goes randomly towards the middle from the side, usually after a pretty good run from a winger. Their defense is tough to penetrate. The offense needs work. They look more solid this year and could pose some danger if the offense begins to connect. Future looks brighter than expected.

That combo from Amherst to GG was pretty to watch.  Put that kind of talent on any NESCAC team and it can compete for the crown.  GG was good last year but this year he is playing with more confidence and more respect from his teammates. He will be scary in a couple of years. Frankly, #23 isn't as smooth. He's big with skills, but looked a bit klunky. Granted this was the first time watching him so I will reserve judgment.  He'll obviously score many goals and would be welcome on most NESCAC teams.  I was expecting to see something different though.  Amherst will go far this year. Not as far as Tufts.

Agreed that talent is obviously a large driver in the success of these programs, as Mr. Right pointed out, but I don't think it is enough to excuse the tactical side of the game. And in some ways, the inability to maximize more talented squads is how that program ended up in the rut it has found itself in. So, there's a bit of a feedback loop there.

Outside of the top, like, 3 (or 4) teams in the conference, everyone else is close enough in talent that it's everything else that your team does at the margins that separates you. Playing for 1-0 wins and 0-0 draws might do you enough to make the conference tournament in most years, but it's always going to put a cap on how good you can be. There is a solid foundation of young talent on which to build, as well as a spine of seniors to keep them afloat this year. But they also aren't going to win anything this year. And while you obviously want to build your defensive foundation first, they are going to stay mired in the back half of the conference if they can't find a way to make themselves dangerous going forward. And without the kinds of players who can create magic by themselves, you do it by getting numbers forward to occupy and overload defenses, by having clear attacking patterns that allow you to play quickly and fluidly against organized defenses, and by designing your attack to create efficient scoring opportunities.

I think a willingness to pass out of the back offers a glimmer of hope in that regard, but it's still too often where they are attacking 2v6 or 4v8, where they attack almost exclusively by having wingers go 1v1 (or 1v2) and hitting hopeful crosses from the flank or taking shots from 20-25 yards out (all things equal, crossing and long shots are extremely inefficient methods of scoring), instead of looking for combinations that could allow them to penetrate into the penalty area.

They seem stronger defensively than I think most were predicting given how many underclassmen they have starting, so I'll be interested to see if they can start to implement some more attacking concepts going forward -- if I'm willing to suffer through another 0-0 draw with other more interesting games to watch going on around the conference

I find myself agreeing with you and Mr. Right an awful lot. This is spot on regarding the Wes style of play and competition in the league.  Plus these 0-0, 1-0 games are just not fun or interesting to watch and oftentimes frustrating. Though frankly that can be said about most conference games.  Players have the right idea, can take on the defenders and seem like they will do something interesting on the play, but too often that ends with a run down the sideline and a hail mary. Haven't seen a single one connect.  Would like to see the attack concepts you speak of implemented (or at least worked on) in games. It is hard to see anyone but the top 3 (maybe 4) winning anything this year (though we all remember what Coby did last year), so why not make it more fun for the students, parents and fans watching?

I get the incentive to be in win-now mode every season, particularly for coaches and senior athletes. But on some level, when you get a good group of underclassmen, you kind of have to shift your mindset into thinking of it as multi-year process: how do you build things up so that by the time your FRs/SOs are JRs/SRs, you can start truly competing for titles again. In some ways, this mirrors the conversation around the US Men's National Team under Berhalter. And like, I don't want to have a true discussion here about whether he is the right coach, etc. etc., but the basic idea is that he's trying to implement a definitive style of play for the national teams, across all levels, that is predicated on having the ball and using positional play to create opportunities -- instead of sitting back and countering, as the US used to do. The USMNT was always quite good at being a counter-attacking team but it was always going to limit the USMNT's ceiling. Obviously, this USMNT doesn't quite have the talent at the moment to execute this new system as we've all seen, but guys like Pulisic, Adams, McKennie, Dest, Weah, Sargent, etc. are all 21 and under, so the hope is that in 3 years when we are in a WC cycle and these guys are hitting their primes, the groundwork laid now allows the group to hit a new level.

Anyways, it's not like Wesleyan has to do anything super intricate, but making sure they get numbers forward and making a more concerted effort to attack towards the center, would be enough of a start.

Quote from: SlideTackle on September 23, 2019, 09:57:53 AM
Great analysis! I think it's right on. There's a tendency at Wes to dribble down the sideline and smack the ball towards the middle of the box hoping (key word, hoping) for some connection in the middle, which is a lot to ask. I've seen some runs from attacking players but they generally don't get the ball back. It goes randomly towards the middle from the side, usually after a pretty good run from a winger. Their defense is tough to penetrate. The offense needs work. They look more solid this year and could pose some danger if the offense begins to connect. Future looks brighter than expected.

That combo from Amherst to GG was pretty to watch.  Put that kind of talent on any NESCAC team and it can compete for the crown.  GG was good last year but this year he is playing with more confidence and more respect from his teammates. He will be scary in a couple of years. Frankly, #23 isn't as smooth. He's big with skills, but looked a bit klunky. Granted this was the first time watching him so I will reserve judgment.  He'll obviously score many goals and would be welcome on most NESCAC teams.  I was expecting to see something different though.  Amherst will go far this year. Not as far as Tufts.

Agreed that talent is obviously a large driver in the success of these programs, as Mr. Right pointed out, but I don't think it is enough to excuse the tactical side of the game. And in some ways, the inability to maximize more talented squads is how that program ended up in the rut it has found itself in. So, there's a bit of a feedback loop there.

Outside of the top, like, 3 (or 4) teams in the conference, everyone else is close enough in talent that it's everything else that your team does at the margins that separates you. Playing for 1-0 wins and 0-0 draws might do you enough to make the conference tournament in most years, but it's always going to put a cap on how good you can be. There is a solid foundation of young talent on which to build, as well as a spine of seniors to keep them afloat this year. But they also aren't going to win anything this year. And while you obviously want to build your defensive foundation first, they are going to stay mired in the back half of the conference if they can't find a way to make themselves dangerous going forward. And without the kinds of players who can create magic by themselves, you do it by getting numbers forward to occupy and overload defenses, by having clear attacking patterns that allow you to play quickly and fluidly against organized defenses, and by designing your attack to create efficient scoring opportunities.

I think a willingness to pass out of the back offers a glimmer of hope in that regard, but it's still too often where they are attacking 2v6 or 4v8, where they attack almost exclusively by having wingers go 1v1 (or 1v2) and hitting hopeful crosses from the flank or taking shots from 20-25 yards out (all things equal, crossing and long shots are extremely inefficient methods of scoring), instead of looking for combinations that could allow them to penetrate into the penalty area.

They seem stronger defensively than I think most were predicting given how many underclassmen they have starting, so I'll be interested to see if they can start to implement some more attacking concepts going forward -- if I'm willing to suffer through another 0-0 draw with other more interesting games to watch going on around the conference

Quote from: Mr.Right on September 21, 2019, 01:39:50 PM
Wesleyan and Bowdoin finish 0-0. Bowdoin nearly won it in the 106th with a 30 yard rifle by Julian Juantorena. Bagged the crossbar instead of the net though and the game finished at zeroes with both teams adding a point to the standings and another shutout to their defensive stats but WHERE ARE THE GOALS? These two teams each have players that can step up but someone needs to get going or both teams will fade.

Was going to try and clip some video from this game, specifically to highlight some of the struggles Wesleyan are having to create chances, but it downloaded kind of funky.

Anyways, here's my breakdown for Wesleyan: given the struggles this program has had over the past few years, there were a bunch of things they needed to correct beyond just finding goals, though that had been a persistent problem. In the past, Wesleyan would drop into a deep block defensively and would struggle to find a way to go out of that, generally choosing to simply boot it long hoping that their forwards could hold the ball up 1 v 4/2 v 6 and slowly win field position, instead of trying to pass out of the back or have patterns of play they could counterattack out of. That was always going to fail. 

This year, to Wheeler's credit, his team has been much more courageous about trying to pass out of the back, being willing to stick to that (for the most part) even as teams press high up the field. By building out of the back, they make it easier to have their front four (Wesleyan is generally playing out of a flat 4-4-2 or a 4-2-3-1, depending on personnel) to occupy spaces higher up the field. Quite a few times today, they were able to break Bowdoin's pressure in their own defensive third, affording Wesleyan the space to play line-splitting passes into the half-spaces (https://spielverlagerung.com/2014/09/16/the-half-spaces/). The problem is that things break down for Wesleyan from there. Instead of using the half-space to then play into the central channel and keep a shifting defense under pressure, too often Wesleyan takes the easy way out by simply bouncing the ball into the wide channel, moving Wesleyan away from goal and allowing opponents' defenses to re-establish a compact shape. Similarly things get quite static once the ball goes out wide; generally, the wide midfielder is asked to drive 25-40 yards to the goal line, beat his defender, and deliver good service across. It's a big ask. I tried to diagram a version of this scenario below, where from left sideline to right sideline there are 5 channels [Left wide channel, Left half-space, Central channel, Right half-space, Right wide channel]:


Otherwise, a forward or attacking midfielder will offer an option by making an inside-out run from the half-space to the wide channels, further moving attacking numbers away from goal.

To be fair, there *were* times when they attempted to play centrally and created some danger for Bowdoin, or simply missed out connecting on the final pass. Connecting on those passes will come with more cohesion, especially as this young team gets more experienced. And the fact that they've clearly worked on how they want to build out from the back is promising. But this program has long suffered from not drilling attacking patterns of play the same way they do on the defensive side on the ball. Soccer is a free flowing game, but you drill defensive tactics and organization to reduce the collective action problems that come from trying to get 11 players on the same page. Giving your team replicable attacking patterns means that you have to do less guessing and reading of your teammates movement and body language, and you can play quicker because you know what spaces your teammate will run into before you get the ball.

This is true beyond Wesleyan; too many teams still look like their attacking strategy is "roll the ball out and make something happen" when the game has moved far beyond that. That's at least, I think, in part, why so many of these games feel like they are 0-0 or 1-1 slogs --- the defenses are cohesive and organized, while the attacks... are not. Now, coaches don't need to be Pep Guardiola, but Pep's teams regularly demonstrate how simple rehearsed attacking patterns through the half-spaces can slice up opponents: 





Finally, we can see a successful use of the half-space in the NESCAC using Amherst's well-worked equalizer against Conn today:





(Sorry, I can't figure out how to make these clips smaller, I would resize them a bit if I could)

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 21, 2019, 06:15:30 PM
I didn't realize Amherst outshot Conn 37-15.  I know Amherst was chasing an equalizer but 37 shots is still a ton.  And Conn out-fouled Amherst by 10.

I don't think they had 37 genuine shots. They only way you get to 37 is if every long ball played in that went to the goalie is considered a shot