NESCAC

[Ommadawn]

I watched the Middlebury-Amherst game today. I felt it was choppy with very little flow and the ball in the air way too much. Is that kind of play typical of NESCAC teams?

I think it's more typical of NESCAC games than it is of NESCAC teams per se.  Amherst's narrow field (and preferred style of play in recent years) no doubt contributed to the apparent lack of flow.  On the whole, NESCAC teams have players that can play a skilled game with the ball on the ground, but when NESCAC conference games are played, the ball winds up in the air a whole lot more than many fans might prefer.

[Another Mom]

Got it. I did feel all the players on the field were very talented,  and both teams scored when they put the ball on the ground and played to feet. Are there teams/games that have better soccer, though?

If the NESCAC is the (or one of) best d3 soccer conference, and Amherst is the #2 ranked team in the country, I am wondering if *all* d3 soccer looks like this?

[TyWebb]

Got it. I did feel all the players on the field were very talented,  and both teams scored when they put the ball on the ground and played to feet. Are there teams/games that have better soccer, though?

If the NESCAC is the (or one of) best d3 soccer conference, and Amherst is the #2 ranked team in the country, I am wondering if *all* d3 soccer looks like this?

I haven't gotten to watch Messiah play this season and I know they've had some injuries so I can't speak to their play in 2019. But last year I watched them play games against Dickinson and York and I was really impressed by how they played the ball on the ground. It seemed to me that unless they were forced to clear, everything was rolling. As a side note but speaking to your point. A few weeks back my 80-year-old mother-in-law came to watch my son's D3 team play a game. When we asked her what her impressions were of the game she said: "both teams kicked the ball in the air too much". I sometimes wonder if the coaches notice....they sure don't seem to say anything.

[Ommadawn]

Got it. I did feel all the players on the field were very talented,  and both teams scored when they put the ball on the ground and played to feet. Are there teams/games that have better soccer, though?

If the NESCAC is the (or one of) best d3 soccer conference, and Amherst is the #2 ranked team in the country, I am wondering if *all* d3 soccer looks like this?

I would be reluctant to paint with so broad a brush.  The same criticism has been leveled against all college soccer (not just D3), but in D3 alone there are dozens (if not hundreds) that "put the ball on the ground and play to feet."  The aforementioned Messiah, UAA teams, Calvin, Tufts, and many others do a good job in playing the style you find appealing.

[blooter442]

I would be reluctant to paint with so broad a brush.  The same criticism has been leveled against all college soccer (not just D3), but in D3 alone there are dozens (if not hundreds) that "put the ball on the ground and play to feet."  The aforementioned Messiah, UAA teams, Calvin, Tufts, and many others do a good job in playing the style you find appealing.

I don't mean this in the literal sense, but as I've said previously the NESCAC is kind of like the Premier League. What I mean is that, at least compared to other D3 conferences, I think there is a recognition that all the teams in the league are relatively close in skill and ability and therefore there is not a lot of urgency to try to play super progressive stuff if they don't have the personnel to do so (for fear of getting blown out). This might explain why you feel that NESCAC teams are more skilled than NESCAC conference games let on.

I think where the frustration for non-NESCAC observers lies is in seeing teams who seemingly have the personnel to keep it on the ground and play some nice stuff but, for whatever reason, don't do so. This can be for a number of reasons, but usually seems to boil down to coaching philosophy. Kind of like Mourinho's teams — nobody really begrudges Stoke or West Brom for going out and playing 4-4-2 with two banks of four and long balls to the hilt given the size of their wage bills, even if I myself have called Amherst "Stoke City" a few times, but when Mourinho had all that talent at Chelsea and Man Utd and he still persisted with a direct, defensive style it drove a lot of people nuts. On a side note, as an LFC supporter it made it even more fun when he got sacked after losing 3-1 at Liverpool trying to park the bus last December, although his Anfield record was surprisingly good including that infamous Gerrard slip game. Still, I enjoyed a good bit of schadenfreude in the former result. (I still think Mourinho coining the phrase "park the bus" is one of the greatest examples of psychological projection I've ever seen — kind of like another well-known individual coining the term "fake news," but we'll leave it at that.)

Anyway, I think there's a difference between being a lower-level team and having to rely on direct tactics to stay in games against better teams and being a good team that persists with a direct style when it appears they could be more progressive. Amherst seems to be the example everyone cites (perhaps along with Bowdoin), and it's hard to disagree — they have had some seriously solid technical players (Pascual-Leone, Spencer Noon, etc.) but have persisted with very direct tactics throughout Serpone's tenure and I think that (in addition to the bench decibel level and on-field antics which seem to almost intentionally be played up an extra 20% above normal) has given them a bad rap. I myself have been guilty of ragging on them, but I have to hand it to them that they get results — that 2017 Amherst team was not exactly a vintage outfit (2012 and 2015 come to mind as the best) but they still made it to the Sweet 16 (and have done so every year since Serpone started). Say what you want about them, and most of us have, but to be able to make it to the Sweet 16 that consistently is remarkable, regardless of what style you play.

All this being said, while some teams play direct stuff, there are a few that like to keep the ball on the ground and have the players to play an exciting style and generally do so. I think of Tufts, Williams, and Conn. Then you have teams who are trying to play positively but they don't quite have the personnel to play combinations or tiki-taka people to death so they play somewhat direct and with pace. I think of Colby, Bates, and maybe Hamilton. They might like to keep the ball on the ground, but know that playing, say, Tufts straight up isn't going to end well, so they sit back and the ball gets into the air. Even teams like Amherst aren't immune to putting together some combinations (e.g. Giammattei's equalizer against Conn.) but they are not exactly possession-oriented as one might say. Then, in addition to Amherst and Bowdoin, you have other teams that prefer to go direct. I think of Middlebury, Trinity, and Wesleyan, although admittedly I haven't seen as much of the latter two in recent years, so that may well be unfair.

Now, I would imagine that NESCAC fans, by and large, will tell you that the ends justify the means. And in the sense of winning national titles, they are correct, though half of all the national titles won by NESCACs (6) have been won by Tufts, which generally keeps the ball on the ground (the 2016 team was an exception, and they themselves would admit that they were not as technically adept as the 2014 and 2018 teams) and from what I understand Williams in 1995 was of a progressive ilk, as well (wasn't there, to be fair). Even so, Messiah has won 11 national titles (five more than all of the NESCAC) generally playing on the front foot, so there is not one right or wrong way to win. But with a number of teams in close competitive proximity, and with mistakes able to be punished in an instant, there is not a lot of incentive to try to tiki-taka your way out of the back. Thus, the long ball is played, a second ball gets contested, and then it just turns into some head tennis. I don't think that's what teams set out to do when they walk out on to the pitch, but it's more often than not the way it unfolds.

[truenorth]

I generally agree with Blooter's analogy regarding the NESCAC bearing similarities to the English Premier League...albeit at the D3 college level.  Even though Tufts and Amherst have performed at a consistently higher level than most other NESCACs over the past 8 years or so, the league is highly competitive.  On any given day, any team has a chance vs. any other team and plays accordingly.  The prettiness of the beautiful game is often sacrificed in an all out 90 minute (or 120 minute) effort to get a result.

Again, as I've said before, I'll take a highly competitive contest (even if direct and not aesthetically appealing) over a mismatch where the dominant team plays on the ground because they're relatively unchallenged.  Although...as I suspect is the case for all of us...the ideal world would be a highly competitive game that is also aesthetically appealing...but that's a relative rarity in D3...or even D1 as Blooter points out.

[Buck O.]

I generally agree with Blooter's analogy regarding the NESCAC bearing similarities to the English Premier League...albeit at the D3 college level.

If the NESCAC is D3's version of the EPL, then is the UAA D3's version of La Liga?

[d4_Pace]

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.

[The_View_From_732]

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.

[Ommadawn]

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 is an excellent point.  Although the substitution rules allow for participation by a larger number of players (a good thing), it fundamentally alters the nature of the game (a not-so-good thing, in my opinion).   I know a successful coach (multiple NCAA tournament appearances) who would start his athletic, but unskilled players, have them run up and down the field to soften the opponent up, and then bring in his skilled players to take advantage of the worn out opponent.  The rules clearly allow and encourage that kind of approach, so it is what it is. Ultimately, though, it is heartening to see that the championship squads are able to overcome such tactics and let their skills shine through.

[Another Mom]

Really appreciate everyone's perspective.  I am trying to educate myself on what is out there so it is tremendously helpful.

Whoever said it was frustrating to watch because you can tell these players have the talent to be doing something other than head ping pong  is right, at least for me.

[Ejay]

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.

[The_View_From_732]

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.

[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.

[OldNed]

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.