WSoc: Notre Dame 1 Stanford 0 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSoc: Notre Dame 1 Stanford 0 (/thread-873.html)

---

WSoc: Notre Dame 1 Stanford 0 - Viking_Guy - 12-05-2010

Crap.

Stanford really didn\'t play well (with the notable exception of goalkeeper Emily Oliver), but most especially in the midfield - they got nothing from Noguiera and McCann, who also gave up the ball a lot.

They were also just out-coached.  Notre Dame used high pressure at the back, and Stanford never could get much going.  And when Paul Ratcliffe was interviewed at halftime, after the run of play had turned against the Cardinal, he said they weren\'t making any lineup changes, but just needed better play.  Umm, that\'s not much coaching.

It tells you all you need to know that Stanford\'s best chance on goal was on a long run forward by center back Courtney Verloo in the first 20 minutes.  Verloo\'s shot hit the inside of the post and ricocheted back rather than in.

What\'s strange is that Stanford never seemed to have much room, despite constant double and triple-teaming of Christen Press; they didn\'t work wide well, only generating two corner kicks in the last 15 minutes, and gave up the ball in the middle of the field over and over again.

The one bright spot was the play of freshman keeper Emily Oliver.  In the relatively even first half, she kept Stanford level with a gorgeous tip of a header that was going in at the upper 90 into the crossbar.  In the second half, she had three more marvelous saves on dangerous chances inside the penalty spot, each time coming up brobdingnagian.

The goal was an example of the problem with Stanford all day; they turned the ball over at midfield and gave up a rush up the left side.  Rachel Quon, who didn\'t generate much pressure up the right side, was way out of position, and Courtney Verloo got beaten coming out.  Garciamendez and Case rotated, but that left a wide open Irish player on the far post, and when the ball was slotted across to her she calmly buried it in the top of the net.

The biggest disappointment was the inability of the team to work together.  As Julie Foudy put it, there was little connection between the three lines, and that\'s on the midfield.  At half, I probably would\'ve moved Noyola (who kept coming back into the middle anyway rather than providing a danger outside at forward) and put Levin outside; Cami\'s more willing to stay wide.  But Nogueira and McCann also hit way too many "hopeful" balls up the middle rather than working wide.  And the forwards also tried a bit too much straight up the middle.  Both of those tendencies, I can tell you as a goalkeeper, lead to counterattacks with your team getting caught forward.

It\'s a real shame.  Stanford has come up short in the final in consecutive years, in both cases losing the physical battle (last year to North Carolina\'s physicality, this year to Notre Dame\'s work-rate - the Irish consistently outhustled the Cardinal) and not being able to put their characteristic passing attack together.  And in both cases, the best player in the country gets left on an island without a lot of support, trying to attack 1 v 3 way too often.

With their talent level, at some point I\'ve got to start pointing fingers at Ratcliffe.  When the coach is saying things like I just put them out there and let them play, and today\'s lack of adjustments at halftime, I start to think my opinion of some successful Stanford coaches - they can recruit, but can they game-manage and improve their players?  (My personal bete noire is Skip Kenney).

Anyhow, disappointed.  Rats.

VG

---

Re: WSoc: Notre Dame 1 Stanford 0 - washingtonismoney - 12-05-2010

I thought the problem came down to a lack of width. The fullbacks stayed at home, which is a real problem against a compact defense like Notre Dame\'s. That\'s why--IMHO--Stanford found so little space despite seeing Press marked heavily. (Press also needed to drift wide more often, which she started doing more frequently later on, and found play much more readily). The other problem was that the outside wingers cut inside frequently. That\'s actually en vogue in European soccer right now, but if you\'re going to do that, you need width. You need your fullbacks bombing forward. I don\'t think I saw a single cross from a fullback today, which is an indictment of the coaching, ultimately.

(The other big problem was the passing of the centerbacks: it shouldn\'t be that hard to outwit Notre Dame\'s pressing: they were only pressing with two players. Two pressers (with one backup) versus four defenders + two holding midfielders. It should be easy to outpass them, particularly if you\'re a possession team, which Stanford is. Sadly it didn\'t happen.)

---

Re: WSoc: Notre Dame 1 Stanford 0 - Viking_Guy - 12-05-2010

WiM--

You\'re right about the lack of width; I thought Stanford\'s best work was when Taylor stayed out wide.  Noyola supposedly playing a wing forward constantly drifted inside, which meant there was no wide player to her side.  Part of that is McCann and Nogueira rarely venturing wide - counting on the wide backs to fill that space.  So Stanford was playing in essentially 2/3rds of the width the whole game - which meant that Press had no room to operate, with one marking, one in support, and generally the holding midfielder tracking back to triple team.  And often no option to square the ball off outside, but Levin and Noyola both inside and easily picked up by the players concentrating on Press.

Another issue was that Quon was caught in-between a lot - not forward enough to generate a lot of pressure, but often leaving space behind her that Verloo or Garciamendez had to rotate over to cover.  And you\'re right, the center back distribution was not great - Garciamendez was reluctant to bring the ball forward because of her lack of recovery speed, and Verloo was covering for Quon.  So Notre Dame generated a hell of a lot of high pressure with only two players forward by sending one person at the ball and hanging out in the passing lanes wide.  Far too much of the game rested on Annie Case as a person moving forward, and she\'s just not used to that role.

VG

---