NESCAC

[Mr.Right]

When Serpone first came into the league in 2007 and showed his recruiting style, playing style most teams changed to keep up with them. Williams did not and just ignored Amherst and stuck to their game. It did wonders reaching 3 Final 4's in Russo's final years. Teams can get to caught up in copying others instead of just adding a little size to deal with Amherst but not going overboard to the point of 1 Nescac team starting a 6'8 striker with NO skill/speed/talent but hoping he can get his head to something.

As far as his behavior and the bench that is different. The old guard of Head Coaches complained to their ADs all the time. However, they had no power to change anything. Pressure was tried to be put on Amherst to do something but all they got was a backhand. Amherst assigned a school monitor to sit at Halfeld but that's all he did was sit there. It was a joke. I believe the only reason Amherst acted on providing a "monitor" was

[Middlebury Dad]

Totally agree with the comments re Amherst.  I have been a college official for over 30 years, and I would never tolerate the antics that I saw on the sideline and the field.  The behavior I witnessed Sunday vs Middlebury was unbelievable.  Now I understand why all of my son's teammates cannot stand Amherst.  It is not their style of play per se--it is the way that they conduct themselves, starting with the head coach.

Can you elaborate on the behavior that you're referencing above?  I did not see the game, so I'm just curious what others see when they watch Amherst.

Frequent f bombs audible from across the field.  Screaming "you're a f...ing disgrace" at other coach.  Coach complaining about every call.  Players arguing every decision by the referee.  Players triggering a mass confrontation after a hard foul, to the point where the referee had to literally shove players back to prevent a fight.

[Another Mom]

Well, Amherst's style puts some recruits off.

I also was at the game; I couldn't hear either coach but agree there was a confrontation after a foul. And there were *so* many fouls!

[SlideTackle]

Totally agree with the comments re Amherst.  I have been a college official for over 30 years, and I would never tolerate the antics that I saw on the sideline and the field.  The behavior I witnessed Sunday vs Middlebury was unbelievable.  Now I understand why all of my son's teammates cannot stand Amherst.  It is not their style of play per se--it is the way that they conduct themselves, starting with the head coach.

I met Serpone when he was recruiting my kid. Totally opposite of what you see on the field. He genuinely seems like a good and thoughtful guy who is all in on his players. He also has an outstanding business/leadership program for his players that sets the program apart from the recruiting perspective. I had never watched one of their games before I met him but had read about the program, so was pleasantly surprised with their presentation. Their players also seemed like a good bunch of guys and many were active in other activities on campus. Having said that, I can now say that what you see on the field and what you see off of it could not be any different. Those competitive juices overwhelm him and the team.

[blooter442]

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.

[SlideTackle]

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.

This couldn't be more true. First time I watched a college game live I couldn't believe what I was seeing, as I was not familiar with the substitution rules. In this particular game 3 subs came on in the 20th minute and I couldn't understand the strategy.  10 minutes later all three were back on the pitch. It's a completely different game under those rules.  Frankly not as interesting to watch from my perspective.

[PaulNewman]

If we're discussing and disagreeing about what playing style is most effective for WINNING and SCORING then that makes sense, and allowing for an argument about a coach using whatever style best fits the strengths and weaknesses of his or her players that he or she has at the time.

Otherwise, I tend to agree with EB2319.  I've never heard alumni talking about how nicely they knocked the ball around the pitch.  They are far more likely to remember a last second goal, that key win against a fierce conference rival, a missed offsides call on a goal, the thrill of a group making their first NCAA tourney, etc, etc.  And I tend to think that many alums or current players (and parents) who do by chance complain about playing style were or are sitting the bench.  This isn't soccer in the cultural, world-wide, Brazilian/European sense.  D3 soccer is just one sport among many at D3 colleges in a college athletic department, and all of those sports are far more interested in an improved season or a conference title or a run in an NCAA tourney than anything else. 

As a side note, much like when I saw my first college (or pro) hockey game live versus television, I did not realize how fast and athletic at least top third of the division D3 soccer is.  In part because of some of the reasons already cited, the pace often is intense with very little time on the ball due to constant pressure.  And I would think this is even more the case in D1.

Lastly, when folks like us do wax poetic about the sublime playing style of a Messiah or OWU it is always in the context of their historical success with winning.  We'd likely not comment about them at all if they consistently finished 10-8 or 9-9.

[PaulNewman]

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.

This couldn't be more true. First time I watched a college game live I couldn't believe what I was seeing, as I was not familiar with the substitution rules. In this particular game 3 subs came on in the 20th minute and I couldn't understand the strategy.  10 minutes later all three were back on the pitch. It's a completely different game under those rules.  Frankly not as interesting to watch from my perspective.

Like many things...it depends.  Especially from a parent perspective (and mot kids), participating without playing (especially at D3) kind of sucks.  Imagine i only the starting 10 field players played with just 2-3 subs and your kid is in the next tier of 3-5 kids.  Not only is participating a huge time commitment, but D3 college soccer is a lot about your teammates and your shared story with them over four years. It is hard to have a great culture and one that is a net positive for a majority of kids on the roster if a big chunk of that roster never plays.  Anyway, the sub rules also are consistent with what I said about soccer just being another sport in the college's sports line-up.  It's about all that being on a college team means as opposed to fidelity to some concept of the game as art.

[Bucket]

Totally agree with the comments re Amherst.  I have been a college official for over 30 years, and I would never tolerate the antics that I saw on the sideline and the field.  The behavior I witnessed Sunday vs Middlebury was unbelievable.  Now I understand why all of my son's teammates cannot stand Amherst.  It is not their style of play per se--it is the way that they conduct themselves, starting with the head coach.

Can you elaborate on the behavior that you're referencing above?  I did not see the game, so I'm just curious what others see when they watch Amherst.

Frequent f bombs audible from across the field.  Screaming "you're a f...ing disgrace" at other coach.  Coach complaining about every call.  Players arguing every decision by the referee.  Players triggering a mass confrontation after a hard foul, to the point where the referee had to literally shove players back to prevent a fight.

Going after the opposing coaches/bench is a new low. There was some of that at Midd last year, but apparently it was far worse on Sunday, as Middlebury Dad relates. Screaming at the Midd coaching staff during the game, then having to be restrained by his players post-game from instigating a confrontation with the opposing staff.

[Mr.Right]

Alumni care about their respective programs and DO remember style of play when it matters to those players and programs...to each his own but I can guarantee u if McCarty decided to radically go conservative for a trump like thrill his fanbase and alums would be go absolutely nuts.....its like that at SLU , Williams and some others..

[PaulNewman]

Alumni care about their respective programs and DO remember style of play when it matters to those players and programs...to each his own but I can guarantee u if McCarty decided to radically go conservative for a trump like thrill his fanbase and alums would be go absolutely nuts.....its like that at SLU , Williams and some others..

Again, though, look who you mentioned.  Williams, SLU....storied programs with proud histories of winning.  Sure, maybe it's nice to look back and think "we played the right way" especially as compared to our dreaded rivals who played the wrong way, but ask Saint of Old if he'd like SLU to play a little less beautiful soccer in the back third versus scoring a few more goals and winning.

[PaulNewman]

One last thought on this.  When I'm watching "my team" as a fan/supporter, I'm a little more concrete than assessing how the style looks.  Like I'm most likely to react in disgust when my team plays a soft ball back to the GK that gets intercepted for a walk-in goal or a kid losing the ball at midfield trying to get through 2-3 players on the other team when he has two teammates obviously wide open.  The anxiety that I experience as a supporter is almost always about are we going to win or not, and what specific plays in retrospect seemed to make the difference in terms of the final result.

I think a lot of good programs play a hybrid style.  I remember Shapiro commenting after the 2016 Elite 8 game with Kenyon that the Lords reminded him (and Tufts players) of Amherst.  I was surprised.  I assumed he didn't mean in terms of being obnoxious, although most teams have a trash talker or two.  And I was taken aback because I actually thought Kenyon played a lot like Tufts.  While watching the game live I didn't think one team played prettier soccer than the other.  They looked similar, both having players who could be nifty with the ball and make clever passes or whatever.  What I mostly remember is fierce competition, with every ball challenged and fought for and frequent shifts in which team was carrying the play for 5 minute stretches.

[Another Mom]

I don't think the sub rules are the reason for this type of soccer.  High school and club allow unlimited substitutions as well, and I don't see this at those games. My son goes to a prep school, so the level of soccer isn't bad, and he plays for Black Rock, where the level of soccer is quite high. Both teams manage to get all their players on the field, but without frequent subs.

[PaulNewman]

I don't think the sub rules are the reason for this type of soccer.  High school and club allow unlimited substitutions as well, and I don't see this at those games. My son goes to a prep school, so the level of soccer isn't bad, and he plays for Black Rock, where the level of soccer is quite high. Both teams manage to get all their players on the field, but without frequent subs.

Black Rock? Well, why didn't you say that before?  Send him to Kenyon! 

[Mr.Right]

Alumni care about their respective programs and DO remember style of play when it matters to those players and programs...to each his own but I can guarantee u if McCarty decided to radically go conservative for a trump like thrill his fanbase and alums would be go absolutely nuts.....its like that at SLU , Williams and some others..

Again, though, look who you mentioned.  Williams, SLU....storied programs with proud histories of winning.  Sure, maybe it's nice to look back and think "we played the right way" especially as compared to our dreaded rivals who played the wrong way, but ask Saint of Old if he'd like SLU to play a little less beautiful soccer in the back third versus scoring a few more goals and winning.

I never remember arguing playing 5ft square balls in the back is beautiful futbol. It is stupid futbol.

Actually this whole situation is playing out in real time in Canton,NY.