2021 Game Notes

Ron Boerger · September 22, 2021, 01:56:47 PM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on September 22, 2021, 12:04:21 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 22, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
I don't applaud or smite as a rule, but, because you identified that there are not one but two hills called "Round Top" and you named the hero who spotted and held the high ground on July 1, 1863, you sorely tempted me to give you a +1.

@Gregory Sager. Your post alone is reward enough.

Having no reservations about karma, I gave you a point.

fishercats · September 22, 2021, 06:08:26 PM

North Park hosting Hope tonight 7:30 central -
https://athletics.northpark.edu/sports/mens-soccer/schedule
https://boxcast.tv/channel/dmfutowrtlmndztdlxrk

Should be an interesting one and telling in terms of where these teams belong in the rankings.

SimpleCoach · September 22, 2021, 06:52:54 PM

Quote from: Ron Boerger on September 22, 2021, 01:56:47 PM

Having no reservations about karma, I gave you a point.
[/quote]

Thanks @Ron Boerger. Humbled.

SimpleCoach · September 23, 2021, 06:21:16 AM

Hope v North Park
North Park
Bias? – It springs eternal, and I watch the show all the time.

   Windy evening at North Park. Wonderful video production. Looks a little chilly as well.
   Hope from the outset owns the ball.
   North Park center back is the de facto center mid. He distributes the ball where he sees fit and it's mostly a long ball to the winger or to a center mid 20 yards away.
   North Park is getting more control of the ball. 10 minutes into the half.
   Issue with the live stream.... Grrrr.
   Ok, bits that are coming through, North Park is taking control of the game. Doing a much better job of controlling the ball in the midfield, although seem to feel like they have to get forward as quickly as they can. Patience would be help.
   Hope is struggling with the pressure in the middle of the park.
   North Parks players, the one that looks like he is in a CDM like roll, and the other who looks like a #10, are doing a great job closing down the lanes into Hopes Midfield. Hope can't get the ball flowing because their center of the park is closed.
   Fewer long balls for North Park, since they have been controlling the ball more.
   Hope is pretty solid in the back.
   Battle of wills as in who will impose themselves on this game. Would give the edge to North Park so far. Few clear chances.
   Hope is making it difficult for North Park to break through and be dangerous in front of goal. North Park is effectively locking down the middle, frustrating Hope's attempts to build out plays going forward.
   It is a battle of two systems of play. Vido zooming in and out is a but frustrating, but this is an entertaining game between two very good teams.
   17 minutes left in the half.
   Crazy play from a Hope corner kick that the first header was cleared off the line, and then a ball bounced off the post and eventually cleared. This was the clearest chance yet that I have seen.
   Ok, was just thinking after Hope made a 5- or 6-man substitution. If as a coach I could have 3 bench players from Hope, North Park, OWU, Messiah, Tufts, and my son for the goalkeeper, I think I would make it to the NCAAs in my first year.
   Hope seems to be getting back on the ball. Love the ebb and flows of good games.
   If I were coaching against North Park, I think I would keep the ball out of the middle. Their center backs are just real good. If I were coaching against Hope, I think I would be demanding that the ball move quicker in the attacking third and see if I can't get the ball behind their back line.
   8 minutes left.
   North Park also has to get more guys around the ball. Seems on several plays, it's 1 v 2 or 3. Need to get some balance there. Which explains why they struggle getting dangerous.
   North Park is sending 2 maybe three guys up against six for Hope.
   And like that, North Park picks a ball off of Hope and catches them with only 3v1 with another defender trying to get back. North Park player who picked off the pass slots it for another forward. Defender who is back let's the ball go passed him where a North Park forward goes to goal. Keeper comes up big on the one on one, but the rebound is tapped in by a big blond guy. Think Hope was calling for a foul on the keeper. Hope 0, North Park 1.
   "Hatch, Hatch! Halftime! Halftime!"
   Thought I could watch the second half later but seems not right now. If it changes later today, I will update.

Ohio Wesleyan v Otterbein
Otterbein
Bias? – Played against both.

   Poor goal kick that is intercepted by an Otterbein forward at the Football 4. OWU defenders caught asleep, and the forward takes the ball to the 18 and passes out wide. OWU defender could have trapped the ball but bounced over his foot to the winger who buries to the far post. Host of errors for OWU, which surprises me. 5 minutes into the 1st half. Ohio Wesleyan 0 Otterbein 1
   Not sure if it is the weather but OWU looks like a slow start...
   OWU is being wasteful with the ball once they get past midfield. Strikes me as uncharacteristic. Midfielders really can't get the ball comfortably.
   Otterbein has had a couple of ball that got behind the center backs that were dangerous.
   Otterbein just needs to be patient. Lots of time left on the clock. 28 left in the first half.
   Not much of a game. Really disjointed and lacks rhythm... both teams.
   And like that OWU wins it in the back and catches Otterbein stepped up. Ball set to a forward who slots the ball between two defenders for the forward to run on and one time the ball past the keeper as he came out. Ohio Wesleyan 1 Otterbein 1
   Quick, methodical ... lethal. 23 left in the half.
   Unfortunately, must drop off here. Think OWU was still the better team and Otterbein more opportunistic. Think this could go either way.
   If I can watch the rest of the game, I will update.

SimpleCoach · September 23, 2021, 08:32:41 AM

Messiah v Elizabethtown
Messiah
Bias? – I built a fire pit just so I could roast marshmallows and am thinking it's not named after my sister.

   Wonderful grass field. What's the deal with the marshmallows?
   Messiah doing what it does. Clearest path to goal seems to be corners.
   Elizabethtown can be dangerous on quick counters that catch Messiah out of position or too high up the field. Had a couple of chances in this way.
   Messiah tries to get the perfect through ball to go. They should shoot from distance a few times to keep Etown honest defensively.
   And the marshmallows keep coming down. As does the rain.
   Once Etown gets in its defensive shell, makes it difficult for Messiah to move the ball in the attacking third. Obviously by design. Messiah could use a sense of urgency when they win the ball and patience when they don't.
   Aside from the couple of quick counters Etown struggles to get the ball. No surprise. Messiah probably average 600 passes a game and Etown looks to be in the 200 passes range. Yes, there are some stats behind those numbers.
   Etown defending with 8, Messiah attacking with 4 or 5. 22 minutes left in the half. Man. Lot of marshmallows ...
   Will say, I do like how Messiahs first inclination is to get control of the ball and move it to an open man. It does make the attack more predictable, but it most definitely does not give the other team the opportunity to challenge for say a 50/50.
   Etown is disciplined behind the ball. Clogging space and making it difficult to penetrate with a through ball or a pass to feet. Messiah would be well served if they just tried to do something long range or get a ball over the top.
   Messiah owns the ball from the center circle on in. Etown just absorbs the game as it comes.
   Etown is looking for the quick break at this point. All they have really on the attack. Funny but I don't think Messiah's transition to defense is particularly good. Think they look almost startled that the other team may have the ball and a say in how the game will evolve.
   Messiah just can't connect in that final third. Testament to Etown's bus.
   Again, think this is the second game I have watched Messiah play. There is seemingly no clear path to goal for Messiah. So focused on controlling the ball, that they play the ball to maintain possession rather than trying to break the backline. As a result they drop the ball back or square when the opportunity to get the ball higher looks even a little unclear. I think Messiah could afford to use some aggressiveness at the expense of controlling the ball. It's the only team I would say that about.
   Would also add, and this is a compliment, Messiah always gives the ball to the next player in a way that communicates to them how they should react to it. If it is ahead of them they go forward. If behind, they drop it back. If it doesn't come to them perfectly, they don't think it is for them. If a team could figure that out, how to force the not perfect set up pass, Messiah would have issues and a lot of turnovers.
   Two minutes left in the half. Am done with this one. Kind of looks like a stalemate. Messiah clearly owns the ball, Etown is parked in the back.

SimpleCoach · September 23, 2021, 08:47:18 AM

Ok. Am trying this out, posting a table. Most of the games I watch I count passes for 10 minutes. Do some calculations and come up with different ways of looking at teams, especially in comparing teams. Again, not scientific. Just more curiosity than anything.

Some conclusions to what I have come up with. If you are below 4 passes per minute, generally speaking, you either play kick and hope, you just play the ball in the back, or in most cases, both. More than 4 you have a purposes. Your pass ratio is obviously dependent on who you play. WashU is not the Barcelona of D3. Greenville just isn't up to the task in this case. But for the most part, possession does indicate relative strength. I will also add, just intuitively, if you are playing a weaker team, you pass ratio will increase by one. If playing a better team, it will go down by one. Even teams is a crap shoot. Not sure what to make of this, surely need to watch tighter, better games. Those teams with less than a pass ratio of 4, end up being cannon fodder for the better teams.

Will also add an interesting observation. I've worked with, or spoke to a number of these coaches for a variety of reasons, including because my sons got recruited. Find it amusing that the conversation with all the coaches we had turned to style of play and all of them said, "We like to play it out of the back. We like to keep possession." I know of 5 of those teams with pass ratios of less than 4 that clearly shows thats not what they do. I am wondering if coaches think they are much better in possession than they actually are. Again, anecdotal but I am think the farther you go down the pass ratio scale, the more the coaches think they are all about possession.

Again, goal here isn't to say who is the "best" just trying to determine if owning the ball matters. I know I have heard countless times how being bigger, faster, stronger is always better in D3. I am just trying to prove or disprove it.

Anyhow, this is another case of me thinking maybe I should go see a therapist. Especially after cleaning up the format of the table.... I.NEED.HELP.

COLLEGE     OPPONENT      TOTALS
           Passes   Bad Passes   % of Bad Passes   Dominance %   Pass Ratio (Passes:Bad Passes)   Passes per Minute   Passes Per Game
Washington U     Greenville        69     6     9%     9%     11.50     7     621
Ohio Northern     Westminster        49     5     10%     4%     9.80     5     441
Messiah     Elizabethtown     65     7     11%     -19%     9.29     7     585
John Carroll     Ohio Wesleyan      25     3     12%     -53%     8.33     3     225
Messiah     Salisbury        73     9     12%     15%     8.11     7     657
Ohio Wesleyan      Ohio Northern     39     6     15%     -14%     6.50     4     351
Elizabethtown     Messiah        18     3     17%     -36%     6.00     2     162
MIT     Regis College        69     12     17%     -32%     5.75     7     621
Denison     Mount Union        44     8     18%     32%     5.50     4     396
Middlebury     Mt. St. Mary      42     8     19%     -25%     5.25     4     378
Salem State     Tufts        36     7     19%     -20%     5.14     4     324
Maryville     Catholic        55     11     20%     -17%     5.00     6     495
Connecticut     Colby        48     10     21%     -45%     4.80     5     432
North Point     Hope        42     9     21%     123%     4.67     4     378
Hope      North Point        40     9     23%     -71%     4.44     4     360
Ohio Wesleyan      John Carroll        35     8     23%     -54%     4.38     4     315
Drew     TCNJ        58     14     24%     -65%     4.14     6     522
Greenville     Washington U     29     7     24%     380%     4.14     3     261
Emory     Calvin        58     15     26%     15%     3.87     6     522
Tufts     Salem State        46     12     26%     19%     3.83     5     414
Washington      F&M        34     9     26%     -11%     3.78     3     306
F&M     Washington         45     12     27%     -39%     3.75     5     405
Anna Maria       Regis College        26     7     27%     -27%     3.71     3     234
Regis College     Anna Maria        37     10     27%     64%     3.70     4     333
Mount Union      Denison        48     13     27%     0%     3.69     5     432
Ohio Wesleyan      Otterbein        37     11     30%     85%     3.36     4     333
Gettysburg     Lebanon Valley     40     12     30%     -46%     3.33     4     360
Lebanon Valley     Gettysburg        40     12     30%     -26%     3.33     4     360
Otterbein     Ohio Wesleyan      20     6     30%     -46%     3.33     2     180
Skidmore     Amherst        20     6     30%     86%     3.33     2     180
Salisbury      Washington        43     13     30%     -28%     3.31     4     387
Capital University Denison        33     10     30%     -86%     3.30     3     297
Mount Union     Adrian        46     14     30%     -16%     3.29     5     414
Earlham     Wittenberg        29     9     31%     -7%     3.22     3     261
Adrian     Mount Union        35     11     31%     69%     3.18     4     315
Catholic     Maryville        44     14     32%     10%     3.14     4     396
Westminster     Ohio Northern     25     8     32%     -8%     3.13     3     225
Amherst     Skidmore        29     10     34%     -19%     2.90     3     261
Wittenberg     Earlham        31     11     35%     -65%     2.82     3     279
Mt. St. Mary      Middlebury        32     12     38%     -22%     2.67     3     288
Ohio Northern     Ohio Wesleyan      28     11     39%     -73%     2.55     3     252
Stevenson     Johns Hopkins     29     12     41%     23%     2.42     3     261
Colby     Connecticut        23     10     43%     -47%     2.30     2     207
Regis College     MIT        28     13     46%     200%     2.15     3     252

Hopkins92 · September 23, 2021, 09:04:30 AM

So, I'm a little late to the "game" but this has been a rather fascinating thread to catch up on.

I'd say your criticism/critique of Messiah is the same issue I've had with Hopkins over the years. Though watching an abbreviated version of their win of SMC last night, they seem slightly more willing to press ahead at the risk of losing possession.

I'd have asked that you put the JHU-Haverford game this Saturday on your watchlist, but was surprised to see the Fords started off the season 0-4. They've bounced back of late and this is a rivalry that goes back decades so... Might still be worth your time... If nothing else to check out a Hopkins team that definitely plays a certain style that is very far from Route 1 soccer.

NEPAFAN · September 23, 2021, 09:39:45 AM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on September 23, 2021, 08:47:18 AM
Ok. Am trying this out, posting a table. Most of the games I watch I count passes for 10 minutes. Do some calculations and come up with different ways of looking at teams, especially in comparing teams. Again, not scientific. Just more curiosity than anything.

Some conclusions to what I have come up with. If you are below 4 passes per minute, generally speaking, you either play kick and hope, you just play the ball in the back, or in most cases, both. More than 4 you have a purposes. Your pass ratio is obviously dependent on who you play. WashU is not the Barcelona of D3. Greenville just isn't up to the task in this case. But for the most part, possession does indicate relative strength. I will also add, just intuitively, if you are playing a weaker team, you pass ratio will increase by one. If playing a better team, it will go down by one. Even teams is a crap shoot. Not sure what to make of this, surely need to watch tighter, better games. Those teams with less than a pass ratio of 4, end up being cannon fodder for the better teams.

Will also add an interesting observation. I've worked with, or spoke to a number of these coaches for a variety of reasons, including because my sons got recruited. Find it amusing that the conversation with all the coaches we had turned to style of play and all of them said, "We like to play it out of the back. We like to keep possession." I know of 5 of those teams with pass ratios of less than 4 that clearly shows thats not what they do. I am wondering if coaches think they are much better in possession than they actually are. Again, anecdotal but I am think the farther you go down the pass ratio scale, the more the coaches think they are all about possession.

Again, goal here isn't to say who is the "best" just trying to determine if owning the ball matters. I know I have heard countless times how being bigger, faster, stronger is always better in D3. I am just trying to prove or disprove it.

Anyhow, this is another case of me thinking maybe I should go see a therapist. Especially after cleaning up the format of the table.... I.NEED.HELP.

COLLEGE     OPPONENT      TOTALS
           Passes   Bad Passes   % of Bad Passes   Dominance %   Pass Ratio (Passes:Bad Passes)   Passes per Minute   Passes Per Game
Washington U     Greenville        69     6     9%     9%     11.50     7     621
Ohio Northern     Westminster        49     5     10%     4%     9.80     5     441
Messiah     Elizabethtown     65     7     11%     -19%     9.29     7     585
John Carroll     Ohio Wesleyan      25     3     12%     -53%     8.33     3     225
Messiah     Salisbury        73     9     12%     15%     8.11     7     657
Ohio Wesleyan      Ohio Northern     39     6     15%     -14%     6.50     4     351
Elizabethtown     Messiah        18     3     17%     -36%     6.00     2     162
MIT     Regis College        69     12     17%     -32%     5.75     7     621
Denison     Mount Union        44     8     18%     32%     5.50     4     396
Middlebury     Mt. St. Mary      42     8     19%     -25%     5.25     4     378
Salem State     Tufts        36     7     19%     -20%     5.14     4     324
Maryville     Catholic        55     11     20%     -17%     5.00     6     495
Connecticut     Colby        48     10     21%     -45%     4.80     5     432
North Point     Hope        42     9     21%     123%     4.67     4     378
Hope      North Point        40     9     23%     -71%     4.44     4     360
Ohio Wesleyan      John Carroll        35     8     23%     -54%     4.38     4     315
Drew     TCNJ        58     14     24%     -65%     4.14     6     522
Greenville     Washington U     29     7     24%     380%     4.14     3     261
Emory     Calvin        58     15     26%     15%     3.87     6     522
Tufts     Salem State        46     12     26%     19%     3.83     5     414
Washington      F&M        34     9     26%     -11%     3.78     3     306
F&M     Washington         45     12     27%     -39%     3.75     5     405
Anna Maria       Regis College        26     7     27%     -27%     3.71     3     234
Regis College     Anna Maria        37     10     27%     64%     3.70     4     333
Mount Union      Denison        48     13     27%     0%     3.69     5     432
Ohio Wesleyan      Otterbein        37     11     30%     85%     3.36     4     333
Gettysburg     Lebanon Valley     40     12     30%     -46%     3.33     4     360
Lebanon Valley     Gettysburg        40     12     30%     -26%     3.33     4     360
Otterbein     Ohio Wesleyan      20     6     30%     -46%     3.33     2     180
Skidmore     Amherst        20     6     30%     86%     3.33     2     180
Salisbury      Washington        43     13     30%     -28%     3.31     4     387
Capital University Denison        33     10     30%     -86%     3.30     3     297
Mount Union     Adrian        46     14     30%     -16%     3.29     5     414
Earlham     Wittenberg        29     9     31%     -7%     3.22     3     261
Adrian     Mount Union        35     11     31%     69%     3.18     4     315
Catholic     Maryville        44     14     32%     10%     3.14     4     396
Westminster     Ohio Northern     25     8     32%     -8%     3.13     3     225
Amherst     Skidmore        29     10     34%     -19%     2.90     3     261
Wittenberg     Earlham        31     11     35%     -65%     2.82     3     279
Mt. St. Mary      Middlebury        32     12     38%     -22%     2.67     3     288
Ohio Northern     Ohio Wesleyan      28     11     39%     -73%     2.55     3     252
Stevenson     Johns Hopkins     29     12     41%     23%     2.42     3     261
Colby     Connecticut        23     10     43%     -47%     2.30     2     207
Regis College     MIT        28     13     46%     200%     2.15     3     252

Test to see if the table comes out cleaner in quote

jknezek · September 23, 2021, 09:49:50 AM

Unfortunately if you want a table to look clean, you have to use the bulletin board table tags. Which is a pain. Better off just linking an image or a spreadsheet if you have a large table.

Hopkins92 · September 23, 2021, 10:56:31 AM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on September 23, 2021, 08:47:18 AM

Will also add an interesting observation. I've worked with, or spoke to a number of these coaches for a variety of reasons, including because my sons got recruited. Find it amusing that the conversation with all the coaches we had turned to style of play and all of them said, "We like to play it out of the back. We like to keep possession." I know of 5 of those teams with pass ratios of less than 4 that clearly shows thats not what they do. I am wondering if coaches think they are much better in possession than they actually are. Again, anecdotal but I am think the farther you go down the pass ratio scale, the more the coaches think they are all about possession.

This had me chuckling. It's the rough equivalent of "what do I have to do to get you into a car today" from a coach. Or car dealerships that talk about being honest and trustworthy.

If you have to say that out loud, there's probably something you're covering for (IMO).

It's been drummed into everyone's head that "playing it out of the back" is the preferrable and "correct" way to play the game. And, yes, it is more aesthetical and often a statistically more preferable way to play.

Problem comes in when you just don't have a) the players or b) the coaching acumen to make that happen.

I know these are obvious points, but you really nailed it when you bring up coaches just saying what they think parents/players want to hear. All it takes is watching your team for 10 minutes to suss that out, coach.

SimpleCoach · September 23, 2021, 11:07:08 AM

Quote from: Hopkins92 on September 23, 2021, 10:56:31 AM
This had me chuckling. It's the rough equivalent of "what do I have to do to get you into a car today" from a coach. Or car dealerships that talk about being honest and trustworthy.

If you have to say that out loud, there's probably something you're covering for (IMO).

It's been drummed into everyone's head that "playing it out of the back" is the preferrable and "correct" way to play the game. And, yes, it is more aesthetical and often a statistically more preferable way to play.

Problem comes in when you just don't have a) the players or b) the coaching acumen to make that happen.

I know these are obvious points, but you really nailed it when you bring up coaches just saying what they think parents/players want to hear. All it takes is watching your team for 10 minutes to suss that out, coach.

Glad I could help lighten the day @Hopkins92. Some of the things we were told were outright absurd ... I knew it when I was told and my sons recruiting list was small because he disqualified coaches who were full of it. That was always the gotcha question for me. To boot, to watch now, I am not sure I am watching the game the coach talked about.

Looking at some of their recruiting classes is even more comical.... doubling down on the opposite of "working it out of the back."

Not that I will ever know, but wonder how many coaches read these boards. And if so, would love to have an honest discussion about how they play. I suspect this wont happen because for some of these guys, being called out isn't exactly what they are looking for...

Gregory Sager · September 23, 2021, 11:36:53 AM

Simple Coach, your chart is useful and you put a lot of time into it. Since I'm having a slow morning at work, I've taken the time to format your chart to make it more readable:

COLLEGE	OPPONENT	TOTALS
		Passes	Bad Passes	% of	Dominance %	Pass Ratio	Passes/Minute	Passes/Game
				Bad Passes		(Passes:Bad Passes)
Washington (MO)	Greenville	69	6	9%	9%	11.50	7	621
Ohio Northern	Westminster	49	5	10%	4%	9.80	5	441
Messiah	Elizabethtown	65	7	11%	-19%	9.29	7	585
John Carroll	Ohio Wesleyan	25	3	12%	-53%	8.33	3	225
Messiah	Salisbury	73	9	12%	15%	8.11	7	657
Ohio Wesleyan	Ohio Northern	39	6	15%	-14%	6.50	4	351
Elizabethtown	Messiah	18	3	17%	-36%	6.00	2	162
MIT	Regis College	69	12	17%	-32%	5.75	7	621
Denison	Mount Union	44	8	18%	32%	5.50	4	396
Middlebury	Mt. St. Mary	42	8	19%	-25%	5.25	4	378
Salem State	Tufts	36	7	19%	-20%	5.14	4	324
Maryville	Catholic	55	11	20%	-17%	5.00	6	495
Connecticut C.	Colby	48	10	21%	-45%	4.80	5	432
North Park	Hope	42	9	21%	123%	4.67	4	378
Hope	North Park	40	9	23%	-71%	4.44	4	360
Ohio Wesleyan	John Carroll	35	8	23%	-54%	4.38	4	315
Drew	TCNJ	58	14	24%	-65%	4.14	6	522
Greenville	Washington (MO)	29	7	24%	380%	4.14	3	261
Emory	Calvin	58	15	26%	15%	3.87	6	522
Tufts	Salem State	46	12	26%	19%	3.83	5	414
Washington (MD)	F&M	34	9	26%	-11%	3.78	3	306
F&M	Washington (MD)	45	12	27%	-39%	3.75	5	405
Anna Maria	Regis College	26	7	27%	-27%	3.71	3	234
Regis College	Anna Maria	37	10	27%	64%	3.70	4	333
Mount Union	Denison	48	13	27%	0%	3.69	5	432
Ohio Wesleyan	Otterbein	37	11	30%	85%	3.36	4	333
Gettysburg	Lebanon Valley	40	12	30%	-46%	3.33	4	360
Lebanon Valley	Gettysburg	40	12	30%	-26%	3.33	4	360
Otterbein	Ohio Wesleyan	20	6	30%	-46%	3.33	2	180
Skidmore	Amherst	20	6	30%	86%	3.33	2	180
Salisbury	Washington (MD)	43	13	30%	-28%	3.31	4	387
Capital University	Denison	33	10	30%	-86%	3.30	3	297
Mount Union	Adrian	46	14	30%	-16%	3.29	5	414
Earlham	Wittenberg	29	9	31%	-7%	3.22	3	261
Adrian	Mount Union	35	11	31%	69%	3.18	4	315
Catholic	Maryville	44	14	32%	10%	3.14	4	396
Westminster	Ohio Northern	25	8	32%	-8%	3.13	3	225
Amherst	Skidmore	29	10	34%	-19%	2.90	3	261
Wittenberg	Earlham	31	11	35%	-65%	2.82	3	279
Mt. St. Mary	Middlebury	32	12	38%	-22%	2.67	3	288
Ohio Northern	Ohio Wesleyan	28	11	39%	-73%	2.55	3	252
Stevenson	Johns Hopkins	29	12	41%	23%	2.42	3	261
Colby	Connecticut C.	23	10	43%	-47%	2.30	2	207
Regis College	MIT	28	13	46%	200%	2.15	3	252

SimpleCoach · September 23, 2021, 11:39:53 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 23, 2021, 11:36:53 AM
Simple Coach, your chart is useful and you put a lot of time into it. Since I'm having a slow morning at work, I've taken the time to format your chart to make it more readable:

@Gregory Sager. Win Hancock would have been proud... thanks. I have no idea how to manage this sort of thing.

PaulNewman · September 23, 2021, 11:53:42 AM

SimpleCoach, yes, you are very ill and definitely need help. Unfortunately, in the triage process you rate as far less in need of assistance than the great majority of us.

As for the possession thing, doesn't that have something to do with level of competition? I recall when coaching my U10 teams outdoors and indoors that we passed and dazzled like crazy....IF the opponent was very inferior...and when the opponent was much better than us, we suddenly turned into a launch, hope, and pray squad (IF we could ever get ahold of the ball). This is my resolution for many teams not being as possession-oriented as the coaches like to think without concluding that many are psychopathic liars. Random example...watch Wittenberg versus Bluffton, and then Wittenberg versus OWU or Calvin.

SimpleCoach · September 23, 2021, 12:09:02 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 23, 2021, 11:53:42 AM
SimpleCoach, yes, you are very ill and definitely need help. Unfortunately, in the triage process you rate as far less in need of assistance than the great majority of us.

As for the possession thing, doesn't that have something to do with level of competition? I recall when coaching my U10 teams outdoors and indoors that we passed and dazzled like crazy....IF the opponent was very inferior...and when the opponent was much better than us, we suddenly turned into a launch, hope, and pray squad (IF we could ever get ahold of the ball). This is my resolution for many teams not being as possession-oriented as the coaches like to think without concluding that many are psychopathic liars. Random example...watch Wittenberg versus Bluffton, and then Wittenberg versus OWU or Calvin.

@Paul Newman. Yes, a big indicator is who they play, by all means. That's why I really am trying to watch games between teams that may be even in terms of talent and ability. Clearly in some instances I watched some bad games. And would say that there are probably another 20 games that I watched that were so out of whack it just didn't add anything to the discussion.

Players do have a role in this, absolutely. And I will say that yes, those elite level players that you see at Tufts, etc. are in limited supply. But not everyone plays these teams. Like I mentioned, I am trying to figure out how a team goes about being better.... not just in terms of how I like teams to play, but also how they can win. And if there are ways in which a team does get better that doesn't require something that would be out of the realm of possibility.

Regarding the coaches, fair point. Not sure I think they are psychopathic liars, but I do know in my sons case, and having watched these teams multiple times for the purpose of if I misunderstood or caught the "wrong" game. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt but the 5 I was talking about, it's not even close ..... Anyhow, my apologies. Will accept negative karma with no ill will.