Conference Playing Styles?

[Ejay]

I recall reading a comment somewhere that conferences have different playing styles.  What are your thoughts on this? I've seen some games in the NJAC, Landmark and the MAC.  Obviously talent top-to-bottom varies significantly, but can assumptions be made as to the playing styles of the successful teams? Do the successful Centennial teams play differently than the successful Old Dominion teams?

[Clotpoll]

With rare exception, all NCAA teams- all three divisions- play old-school, direct launchball. The few teams that try to incorporate tactical play cannot maintain it for more than 25'-30' in a close, competitive game. All 'winning' sides press for 90', due to the liberal substitution rules, so there's no change-of-pace in attack or use of possession play to allow teams to 'rest while on the ball'. Central players tend to be defensively-oriented workhorse types, and perimeter players are often only instructed to go as hard as they can for as little no as they can, then sub off.

Brandeis, Babson, Haverford, F&M and Oneonta- IMO- are about as close as you'll get to teams that will give you 25-30' of real soccer within any game.

Love to see other opinions as to teams that could be added to the list above.

[blooter442]

If I can borrow comparisons with foreign leagues solely in terms of style of play, this is what I'd say:

NESCAC – English Premier League – Physical and athletic. A very competitive league where the gap from top-to-bottom isn't as large as other leagues. Much like the EPL there are a few teams who can play a possession-based game such as Tufts and Williams, but the style of play is pretty direct for the most part. The top teams are always in the hunt – even if, in the case of the EPL, there hasn't been a UCL Champion from the League since 2012, whereas the NESCAC has won the last 3 UAA titles.
UAA – La Liga – Technical and skillful. Pass-and-move is the name of the game, although Brandeis can play direct when necessary – they are probably the most physical team in the league, while Chicago and Rochester are probably the most athletic sides. The teams at the top of the UAA are always relatively competitive in terms of the national picture, but perhaps the opposite of the NESCAC/EPL comparison is true here, as the last four UCL titles have been won by La Liga sides while Brandeis is the only UAA side to have won a national title (and that was before they became members of the UAA).
NEWMAC – Bundesliga – A couple of solid possession teams, but most teams line up relatively "pragmatic" – at least in my experience. I say pragmatic because a "defensive" lineup would be more like Serie A, while the Bundesliga (and the NEWMAC) are relatively balanced.

[Clotpoll]

Interesting, blooter...

I think you give the NESCAC a little too much respect. I don't think the top tier sides have any desire to ever play possession, and the national championship clubs have all been loaded with track & field types who thrive in 50/50 jungle ball. The Amherst-Loras final in 2015 still rates as one of the worst games I've ever seen.

UAA is a challenging league, but much of the challenge comes from travel and heavy home-field advantages. The top sides can play soccer for a few minutes at a time, though.

NEWMAC is interesting, because everyone- except Springfield- tries to play pass/possession. However, all the teams break down under varying degrees of pressure. Springfield plays a remarkably unattractive brand of scrumball but went far with it last year.

[blooter442]

Interesting, blooter...

I think you give the NESCAC a little too much respect. I don't think the top tier sides have any desire to ever play possession, and the national championship clubs have all been loaded with track & field types who thrive in 50/50 jungle ball. The Amherst-Loras final in 2015 still rates as one of the worst games I've ever seen.

UAA is a challenging league, but much of the challenge comes from travel and heavy home-field advantages. The top sides can play soccer for a few minutes at a time, though.

NEWMAC is interesting, because everyone- except Springfield- tries to play pass/possession. However, all the teams break down under varying degrees of pressure. Springfield plays a remarkably unattractive brand of scrumball but went far with it last year.

Probably true that I give the NESCAC too much respect, but I cannot think of a more competitive conference top to bottom and with the winning know-how, which is where the EPL comparison came in (for the record, I'm a supporter of a UAA school). As we say elsewhere on the boards, Amherst's brand of soccer is not fun to watch, but they are an athletic group and it is physical/effective. I would still say that Tufts and Williams play solid possession-based soccer, even if it's not tiki-taka.

Agree that travel makes for a tough challenge in the UAA; disagree that there's any significant home-field advantage at any of the grounds, bar Emory, the only team who plays on natural grass (Chicago does as well, sometimes, but they play on turf as well). Anecdotally speaking, I've seen a ton of home losses/away wins in the UAA – of course, that is only my observation.

NEWMAC – Springfield does play a pretty hard-to-watch version of hoofball, but I would also argue that Coast Guard and MIT (since Bovell took over) are rather defensive-minded. The rest can play in the final third, but while Babson and Wheaton are the most attacking sides, I wouldn't say either has been particularly potent in the final third in the last 5 years or so.

[Ejay]

This is great info.  How are you able to see all these teams play that you know so much about their style?

[Clotpoll]

Son is a NEWMAC player. Was recruited by & visited at several schools in other conferences. I'm also a coach, so I watch some amount of NCAA just to stay on top of it.

[Clotpoll]

blooter, great point on Babson & Wheaton. Babson's lack of finishing has killed them in the postseason recently. Wheaton can score, but their defending is suspect, and the team is super undisciplined. Lots of cards when things get tight.

[1970s NESCAC Player]

This is great info.  How are you able to see all these teams play that you know so much about their style?

Virtually every game is now available to live stream on the home team's website.  If you have the time, there is almost no limit to the number of D3 games you can watch each fall.

[1970s NESCAC Player]

Son is a NEWMAC player. Was recruited by & visited at several schools in other conferences. I'm also a coach, so I watch some amount of NCAA just to stay on top of it.

Clotpoll, some interesting takes.  Could you clarify what you mean by "50/50 jungle ball"?  Not sure whether you are implying lack of skill, directness of style, emphasis on physicality, or some, all, or none of the above.  In the NESCAC, some on these boards might argue that the teams are all, to some degree, loaded with technical, tactically aware players, so it is the team that can physically impose itself that wins.  [Or maybe you are saying that as well?]

[Saint of Old]

With rare exception, all NCAA teams- all three divisions- play old-school, direct launchball. The few teams that try to incorporate tactical play cannot maintain it for more than 25'-30' in a close, competitive game. All 'winning' sides press for 90', due to the liberal substitution rules, so there's no change-of-pace in attack or use of possession play to allow teams to 'rest while on the ball'. Central players tend to be defensively-oriented workhorse types, and perimeter players are often only instructed to go as hard as they can for as little no as they can, then sub off.

Brandeis, Babson, Haverford, F&M and Oneonta- IMO- are about as close as you'll get to teams that will give you 25-30' of real soccer within any game.

The Saints of SLU have been playing total football now for atleast a quarter century non stop.
It caused them to lose badly in the early 90s, but since I think '95 the program has danced almost yearly while playing possession soccer.

I will always be a fan of beautiful soccer played on the ground with skill and speed showcased for 90 minutes, but several teams over the years (Most notably Amherst) have led me to understand that atleast in the college game, there is more than one way to win a championship.

Great teams don't have to play possession football, but the Russo's and Durocher's of the world are getting fewer and fewer in the college game.

Love to see other opinions as to teams that could be added to the list above.

[Clotpoll]

70s guy,

To me, a team that doesn't build from the back and work through the thirds on the ground with an eye toward starving the opponent of the ball usually falls into the opposite camp of 50/50 jungle ball. Goalkeepers who launch punts and gk's into a clump of players he's pushed 'up and in' are doing nothing more than creating 50/50 balls which adept defensive sides usually shove right back down their throats. Same goes for backs who can't/won't play thru the 6/8 and bypass the midfield with wild clearances and low percentage passes. This kind of play doesn't require footballing skills; it simply requires speed, stamina and athleticism. That's also 99.9% of teams at all three NCAA levels.

I find this type of game objectionable simply because it doesn't require a tactical, skilled or astute player to execute. All fine and good, but when US players find themselves up against elite competition who have 11 players with a strong mentality and top decision-making skills, well...we've all seen the results.

IMO, neither the NESCAC- nor any other conference in all three divisions- has more than a handful of tactically proficient players sprinkled throughout the entire conference. Tactically AWARE? Maybe, but awareness doesn't equal the individual ability or team will to execute to a plan- any real plan- for 90'. What the NCAA has in spades are excellent technical individuals who are super fit and athletic...which, when you can throw them on the pitch in waves in a liberal substitution setting, is conducive to successful jungle-balling. At the age of 18, soccer becomes a man's game, and that means less time on the ball because defenders close you down fast and passing windows close. Individuals and teams deal with that challenge by either imposing tactical superiority, or they sink to the level of attempting physical, technical and individual solutions to the challenge.

[Clotpoll]

Saint, at the risk of boiling your blood, I'd submit that no team in the US- including professional- plays anywhere near the Cruyff/Michels ideal of Total Football. That takes years- maybe even over a decade- of choreographed, repetitive and emotionally challenging rehearsal that incorporates complete physical, emotional and intellectual commitment from a tight-knit group of players. That simply doesn't happen in the US, although Brian Kleiban and Joey Cascio seem to have groups that are well along that path and progressing nicely.

As for StL, I've watched them less over the years, simply because I can't stand the way most of their Liberty League opponents play. I am, however, very familiar with Bednarsky, the one guy I'd say you had in the last few years who's one of the rare gifted tactical players at the D3 level. Any other country on the planet, he's a pro player right now.

I watched the Amherst loss, and honestly, I thought StL didn't have the tactical nous across 11 players to see off Amherst. There were long stretches of play where StL jungle balled with Amherst (which is 100% not what you want to do), and it precluded what should've been an easy victory in regulation. At the elite level, a team like Amherst should lose to any tactically-superior side 90 times out of 100 in a playoff or championship setting.

[midwest]

I'm going to risk revealing my soccer-mom ignorance (not for the first, or last time) but, while specific schools have styles of play, I don't know that I would lump entire conferences together.  In my limited experience, St Lawrence played the most "beautiful" soccer I'd seen, at a small camp of prospects and incoming freshman -- tight, skilled, fast.  Watching Calvin play deep in the NCAA tournament had some satisfying moments.  I've never seen Messiah play live, though I think we've watched some online matches.  Other than that, Amherst, Haverford, Dickinson, they all looked like powerful guys, long balls, hard tackles. Club soccer usually looks more controlled, with more build up. D3 is, for the most part, not a thing of beauty.  For my kid, it is a way to keep doing what he loves, make close friendships, and be at a school he loves. 

[Clotpoll]

Midwest, don't worry. Lots of wisdom in your post. I think many sharp D3 players realize it's not so much about soccer as it is leadership, camaraderie, motivation and using your time wisely/self-management.