2021 Game Notes

[PaulNewman]

But it's not like a weak team is gonna play better soccer if they only get 3 subs.  Just don't think the suggested correlation between overly generous substitution rules and bad soccer holds.  A bad team is gonna play bad soccer, whether they play 12 or 30.  If they are a little tougher to play because they're not so good, but fresher, I'm not sure how that doesn't seem preferable.  In other words, imo it's not the amount of subs that determines whether you play "kick and run."  Weak teams who would only get a few subs would just lose by more dramatic margins.  Their tactics wouldn't be forced to improve (as this argument is going), and indeed they'd do even more of it even less effectively.

[PaulNewman]

I don't think the argument is that unlimited substitutions prevents you from playing "good" soccer its that it allows you to get away with the other style. If you have the talent and depth then you can certainly play 23 guys who all know how to keep possession, play your system, etc. But if you are only only allowed to play 15 guys you are not going to try to press for 90 minutes win second balls etc.

That being said the trade off is then that those lessers teams will adapt again and would probably end up just sitting deeper, defending their box and looking to counter even more so than they do now. 

Ultimately I think your point about talent gaps dictating style is a very good one. Messiah keep the ball like no one else but ultimately no one in DIII is Barcelona or City. I think if we get a Messiah Tufts rematch Messiah's possession will suddenly seem a little less pristine (they probably would still have the ball 55/60% of the time it just would be a little less comfortable).

Agree with most of this and think you're making my point.  A bad team with even more limited resources is going to resort to even more desperate (and possibly more onerous) measures.  They are NOT going to play better soccer.  As an opponent I think I'd rather them come out and try to press me instead of camping the whole team in their own final third the whole match.

And agree with you on Messiah-Tufts, which of course will work both ways in terms of an opponent having an impact they aren't used to.

Bottom line...the substitution correlation gets made all the time (and not just here), and it's not clear to me at least that the correlation holds to the extent often suggested.

[jknezek]

I don't think the argument is that unlimited substitutions prevents you from playing "good" soccer its that it allows you to get away with the other style. If you have the talent and depth then you can certainly play 23 guys who all know how to keep possession, play your system, etc. But if you are only only allowed to play 15 guys you are not going to try to press for 90 minutes win second balls etc.

That being said the trade off is then that those lessers teams will adapt again and would probably end up just sitting deeper, defending their box and looking to counter even more so than they do now. 

Ultimately I think your point about talent gaps dictating style is a very good one. Messiah keep the ball like no one else but ultimately no one in DIII is Barcelona or City. I think if we get a Messiah Tufts rematch Messiah's possession will suddenly seem a little less pristine (they probably would still have the ball 55/60% of the time it just would be a little less comfortable).

Agree with most of this and think you're making my point.  A bad team with even more limited resources is going to resort to even more desperate (and possibly more onerous) measures.  They are NOT going to play better soccer.  As an opponent I think I'd rather them come out and try to press me instead of camping the whole team in their own final third the whole match.

And agree with you on Messiah-Tufts, which of course will work both ways in terms of an opponent having an impact they aren't used to.

Bottom line...the substitution correlation gets made all the time (and not just here), and it's not clear to me at least that the correlation holds to the extent often suggested.

You are focusing on only one side of the coin... the less talented team. All you have to do is look at some of the better teams, F&M, many of the NESCAC schools, and many more, to realize that the incentive to play good soccer, even for the better team, is not there. The incentive to be big, strong, fast sprinters, and interchangeable pieces is there, whether it is the better team or the worse team.

The goal is to change the incentive. Take away some of the ability to be that interchangeable bash and sprint team and you will see more teams trying to play a different brand. Will weaker teams still pack the box and hope for a counter? Of course. That happens at all levels. But at the top levels of any soccer pyramid, it is rare for a bash and run team to win... except in the U.S. h.s. and college ranks. And the reason for that is the rules incentive. Now, do bash and run teams always win? Of course not, but when you help even the playing field, or even tilt it toward that style, then you get more and more of that style and it is hard for teams who want to play a different style to do so. You don't only have to be better, you have to be significantly better.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you. But I hate the sub rules, I hate the limited practice rules, and I really hate the style most h.s. and college teams play because the incentive is there to play those styles.

[PaulNewman]

Touche, interesting, and I'll accept we aren't going to agree.  Would you also prefer other sports like basketball and football to have more restrictive subbing?

And just on a totally personal, selfish level, I would hate for one of my kids to be #16 on a team that never plays more than 13-14, especially if the margins between #8 to #17 are razor thin to sometimes undetectable or subject to marginal fluctuations back and forth.

[jknezek]

Touche, interesting, and I'll accept we aren't going to agree.  Would you also prefer other sports like basketball and football to have more restrictive subbing?

And just on a totally personal, selfish level, I would hate for one of my kids to be #16 on a team that never plays more than 13-14, especially if the margins between #8 to #17 are razor thin to sometimes undetectable or subject to marginal fluctuations back and forth.

I don't watch basketball, and football... well I'm too young to remember the game before the platoon system was implemented, but I wonder if it wasn't a more interesting game. Specialization of 300lb offensive lineman is odd for any athletic endeavor. I do believe it would be a less violent sport without the platoon system. If you had to play both sides, you simply couldn't throw your body around the way they do now and it would probably look more like rugby.

As a side note to this already ridiculously off-topic post, I love Rugby Sevens. I think it's a sport Americans would really like if it could crack the crowded sports landscape. Fast paced, quick games, fluid movement, large fields. Rugby Union and Rugby League are ok, but Sevens is super fun to watch.

[PaulNewman]

One point of clarification because I realize my long post about Amherst vs Tufts last week could have been misinterpreted as I see references to NESCAC, F&M and others as kick and run examples and I described both teams that I saw live as not playing particularly attractive soccer.

I absolutely did not mean that they were playing kick and run (which, as I say, gets thrown around pretty easily).  I mentioned the impact of the wind and both teams struggling to get the ball on the ground and maintain possession.  But it was not kick and run.  Both teams defended aggressively and made life difficult for the other, and the action was highly competitive.  That said, both did pass around the back and attempt to connect with midfielders, and when forwards did get some service they tried to be and sometimes were creative and attempting to make real soccer plays.  There were skilled soccer players all over the field who imo were trying to play decent soccer.

FWIW, Amherst used 5 subs vs Tufts over 108 minutes, and against Wesleyan in a game that went the full 110 minutes, Amherst essentially used 4 subs (with a couple of others getting 1 minute and 2 minutes respectively).

[susanc]

I really appreciate someone bringing up the dump and run style of play and it's prevalence in D3 soccer.  My son has fantastic technical skills, amazing passing and a high soccer IQ and wants to play the beautiful game. He found himself in a collegiate program that has said they were planning to change their style and try to "play." They got a couple of good goal scorers up front and then just opted to bash, kick, run and hope.    It's been a tough and frustrating for him as a player and us, as parents. 

[Ejay]

I really appreciate someone bringing up the dump and run style of play and it's prevalence in D3 soccer.  My son has fantastic technical skills, amazing passing and a high soccer IQ and wants to play the beautiful game. He found himself in a collegiate program that has said they were planning to change their style and try to "play." They got a couple of good goal scorers up front and then just opted to bash, kick, run and hope.    It's been a tough and frustrating for him as a player and us, as parents.

It's not just D3. It's college soccer.  Watch the D1 game and they're playing over the midfield too. 

And we all have kids that are technically strong with great soccer IQs. They've been playing the game for a long time and their training sessions are structured to create those types of players.  But ultimately, the teams who win most often are those who play more direct (not kick and run, but direct) because you're not going to tiki-taka your way down the field to score a goal.  Rather your going to use your flank speed and strength up top, and the holding mid who plays the beautiful game beautifully will get lost in the shuffle unless he also happen to be fast, or strong, or big.

[Buck O.]

I don't think the argument is that unlimited substitutions prevents you from playing "good" soccer its that it allows you to get away with the other style. If you have the talent and depth then you can certainly play 23 guys who all know how to keep possession, play your system, etc. But if you are only only allowed to play 15 guys you are not going to try to press for 90 minutes win second balls etc.

That being said the trade off is then that those lessers teams will adapt again and would probably end up just sitting deeper, defending their box and looking to counter even more so than they do now. 

Ultimately I think your point about talent gaps dictating style is a very good one. Messiah keep the ball like no one else but ultimately no one in DIII is Barcelona or City. I think if we get a Messiah Tufts rematch Messiah's possession will suddenly seem a little less pristine (they probably would still have the ball 55/60% of the time it just would be a little less comfortable).

Agree with most of this and think you're making my point.  A bad team with even more limited resources is going to resort to even more desperate (and possibly more onerous) measures.  They are NOT going to play better soccer.  As an opponent I think I'd rather them come out and try to press me instead of camping the whole team in their own final third the whole match.

And agree with you on Messiah-Tufts, which of course will work both ways in terms of an opponent having an impact they aren't used to.

Bottom line...the substitution correlation gets made all the time (and not just here), and it's not clear to me at least that the correlation holds to the extent often suggested.

You are focusing on only one side of the coin... the less talented team. All you have to do is look at some of the better teams, F&M, many of the NESCAC schools, and many more, to realize that the incentive to play good soccer, even for the better team, is not there. The incentive to be big, strong, fast sprinters, and interchangeable pieces is there, whether it is the better team or the worse team.

The goal is to change the incentive. Take away some of the ability to be that interchangeable bash and sprint team and you will see more teams trying to play a different brand. Will weaker teams still pack the box and hope for a counter? Of course. That happens at all levels. But at the top levels of any soccer pyramid, it is rare for a bash and run team to win... except in the U.S. h.s. and college ranks. And the reason for that is the rules incentive. Now, do bash and run teams always win? Of course not, but when you help even the playing field, or even tilt it toward that style, then you get more and more of that style and it is hard for teams who want to play a different style to do so. You don't only have to be better, you have to be significantly better.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you. But I hate the sub rules, I hate the limited practice rules, and I really hate the style most h.s. and college teams play because the incentive is there to play those styles.

I think that you've nailed it here, Jknezek.  Earlier, Paul, you said, "Many of the best teams, including Tufts, Messiah, OWU, Kenyon, etc routinely use 18-19 players....not as charity, but because that helps them WIN."  And that's right.  They play that way because they want to win.  But the current substitution rules are the reason why that strategy is the best strategy.  More restrictive substitution rules would mean that playing large numbers of players, and letting the subs "press and defend in 15 minute power shifts," as D4 put it, is no longer the preferrred strategy.  I mean, it would still happen to a limited extent.  As we've all seen, it's common at the highest levels of soccer to play a forward for 65-70 minutes and then sub him out for fresh legs.

[PaulNewman]

Fair enough, Buck O....but there are more factors to consider than beautiful soccer..  Also strange to now argue that the "lax" sub rules HELP teams like Messiah play good soccer.  I thought the argument was the opposite.  And I'm having trouble understanding how fewer subs and more fatigue will result in better play as opposed to a worse, more fatigued version of what the complaint already is.

Anyway, as far as other factors, I personally think it would be ridiculously outrageous for teams to be limited to 3 subs with zero re-entry in DIVISION III soccer.  Talk about impacting institutional recruitment and retention.  Think about the majority of D3 schools/teams who are never going to make a NCAA tournament or pop up in a discussion of national rankings or RvR....like some of the Penn State regional campuses and all the schools with SoSs well below .500.  I'm stunned that anyone here would think highly restrictive sub rules would be a good thing.  Soccer already in general has so many arcane rules...the subbing which is different than most major sports, "extra time," a single primary ref managing a huge field with 22 players, ties, etc.  College soccer also is seasonal, just like every other college sport.  It was never intended to mimic professional soccer, especially at the D3 level.  And these are college kids trying to enjoy a college experience...it's part of the experience, not separate from it.  At many of these schools (I would dare say most), and often by sophomore year, but definitely by junior and senior years, most of the kids on the team live together, eat together, study together, party together. They are a fraternity.  If you're in a 5-6 man apartment and only two of roommates play that's pretty tough for the other 3-4.  Then triple or quadruple such set-ups for the whole team and there's a better than decent chance the dynamics are not going to be great.

[jknezek]

Fair enough, Buck O....but there are more factors to consider than beautiful soccer...and the latter is sort of curious since I can't think of another sport off the top of my head where the sport is so harshly critiqued on "beauty."  Also strange to now argue that the "lax" sub rules HELP teams like Messiah play good soccer.  I thought the argument was the opposite.  And I'm having trouble understanding how fewer subs and more fatigue will result in better play as opposed to a worse, more fatigued version of what the complaint already is.

Anyway, as far as other factors, I personally think it would be ridiculously outrageous for teams to be limited to 3 subs with zero re-entry in DIVISION III soccer.  Talk about impacting institutional recruitment and retention.  Think about the majority of D3 schools/teams who are never going to make a NCAA tournament or pop up in a discussion of national rankings or RvR....like some of the Penn State regional campuses and all the schools with SoSs well below .500.  I'm stunned that anyone here would think highly restrictive sub rules would be a good thing.  Soccer already in general has so many arcane rules...the subbing which is different than most major sports, "extra time," a single primary ref managing a huge field with 22 players, ties, etc.  College soccer also is seasonal, just like every other college sport.  It was never intended to mimic professional soccer, especially at the D3 level.  And these are college kids trying to enjoy a college experience...it's part of the experience, not separate from it.  At many of these schools (I would dare say most), and often by sophomore year, but definitely by junior and senior years, most of the kids on the team live together, eat together, study together, party together. They are a fraternity.  If you're in a 5-6 man apartment and only two of roommates play that's pretty tough for the other 3-4.  Then triple or quadruple such set-ups for the whole team and there's a better than decent chance the dynamics are not going to be great.

Every sport has a version of the beauty argument that crops up. In the 80s in basketball the argument was about the fouling and inside play. In the 90s and 00s it was about no one being able to shoot and only driving to the hoop, now it's about 3 pointers and isolation being too prevalent. Baseball argues constantly over the beauty of the game. It's why purists are fine with games that take forever because there is no clock, all those ridiculous unwritten rules, designated hitters, and now shifts. In football we've gone through it with the change from 3 yards and a cloud of dust to 5 receiver sets and go fast offenses. For golf it's about length, and if golfers' equipment should be limited to not overpower courses.

Maybe the word they are using isn't "beauty", but it's all about how the rules effect the style of play. And that's exactly what this discussion is about. It's a rare sport that DOESN'T have this argument, not a rare one that does.

[PaulNewman]

My bad.  I thought the discussion was about whether changing the sub rules is overall a good idea in D3 soccer.

The 15 minutes waves thing also is a bit exaggerated.  You can only re-enter once.  And many of the better teams sub a couple with 20-25 min left in the first, then another couple with 10 min left in the half, and similar in the 2nd half.

[jknezek]

My bad.  I thought the discussion was about whether changing the sub rules is overall a good idea in D3 soccer.

huh...

Fair enough, Buck O....but there are more factors to consider than beautiful soccer...and the latter is sort of curious since I can't think of another sport off the top of my head where the sport is so harshly critiqued on "beauty." 

[PaulNewman]

Again, my bad, that first sentence was more of an aside and the rest of the post was what I was invested in.  And even in that first sentence, the key part was the there are more factors to consider than beautiful soccer.  And I thought you didn't watch basketball!  Anyway, sure, other sports have styles of play like bball that fans sometimes like or don't like...but imo soccer is unique in the extent to which "beauty" and "playing the right way, etc. can dominate the focus.

Any thoughts on the rest of that post?  I obviously trying to underscore that imo there are more factors to consider relative to the wisdom of changing sub rules.

[jknezek]

Again, my bad, that first sentence was more of an aside and the rest of the post was what I was invested in.  And even in that first sentence, the key part was the there are more factors to consider than beautiful soccer.  And I thought you didn't watch basketball!  Anyway, sure, other sports have styles of play like bball that fans sometimes like or don't like...but imo soccer is unique in the extent to which "beauty" and "playing the right way, etc. can dominate the focus.

Any thoughts on the rest of that post?  I obviously trying to underscore that imo there are more factors to consider relative to the wisdom of changing sub rules.

My thoughts on the overwhelming number of small colleges in this country, and the need many of them have to create oversized rosters of sports teams to keep the doors open, would not be very popular on these boards.