Washington

The good thing is that Garrett will probably have player's full attention this week if they don't want a repeat, and we have two games coming up that will be games to try different things on and hone our skills.

The UW match is just another key step in the learning process of the team. Another building block (to 2nd Geezer's qoute)... at getting better and preparing for tougher challenges that are sure to come during the tourney. Its important for them to know what their strengths and weaknesses are early in the season. Chalking up a win...despite tough conditions, physical play and things generally "not going our way" ....is a very good and positive sign of progress! They proved today that they're resourceful enough to counter a turbulance. Garrett will coach them to smoother "piloting"! Oh yah....GO PILOTS!!!

Geezaldinho wrote:Too bad it was an away game and we won't get to see replays. Those were both great top shelf blasts away from the keeper.

The first she had all kinds of time (made it, really, because it was on the volley from a leg trap).

The second was though traffic.

Geezer, Harry, UPSF - On the computer screen, it looked like Danielle's 2nd goal came after she held the ball through some traffic. In other words, she created the goal pretty much on her own (ala Sinclair, Rapinoe, Michelle), which is something she was not able to do much of last year as a freshman - taking on a defender, or two, creating space herself. Last year, she was pretty much just a finisher (but a good one). I am guessing her footskills have gotten much better (no big surprise there), but it's almost impossible to tell on the computer.

Fan

That's right on the second goal; she made it by running at the defense. Did look a little like the kind of goal that Michelle might have scored. I think that Dani's overall game has improved. As you say, no surprise there: this is her second season of D1 play. She does a better job of holding the ball and looking for a pass. As I mentioned earlier, she created a couple of good chances yesterday.

It's always interesting to see how much improvement players make in the second season. Especially when they've had such a visible success as a freshman. Dani scored 16 goals and registered 6 assists her first year. It will be a very good college career if she can maintain these numbers for four years! If she can add to that game in other ways too: well that would be very special.

In the first half the Pilots challenged the UW defense by running at them with the ball on several occasions: Michelle E and Kendra were the main protagonists but Dani too. To their credit UW managed to hold them off: albeit some times it was the second or third tackle that won the ball or pushed it wide and out of immediate danger. Looked almost like UP wanted to see what might happen if they tried that approach rather than the passing combos that they usually go for.

Thanks, Harry - It's really frustrating watching on the computer. I will out there for the Miami and Illinois games, and it will be a pleasure to see them in person. I can hardly wait.

You got up quite early out there, or are you STILL up?

I just checked out the box score from last year's game with UW. As everyone may remember, we beat them 1-0 at Merlo in overtime. What I wanted to see was if we had a full complement of players. We did, although Enyeart did not start, but played 51 minutes. Other than Michelle, we used only two subs, for about 15 minutes each (Kreminski and Jackman).

Looking at it in that light, last year we beat them 1-0 at home in overtime. This year we beat them 2-0 at UW in regulation time. Makes yesterday's game seem a lot better.

One think I think has not been mentioned much about the game: Kendra had a really good game. Her work rate was excellent, especially as the game progressed and other players began to look tired. She was all over the field. It looks like she's close to fully back, and I think we may just be beginning to see what she's capable of.

My comments on players are not meant as criticism. Rather areas for improvement or things that likely will get taken care of with experience & coaching (especially after games like this).

Feedback on a soccer game is similar to that for a book or movie review. Everyone gets that same information as input, but how we interpret & process that information can differ greatly. Here is my take.

UP:
-shots by Foxhoven were extremely well-placed; the goalie was just far enough in front of the net so that the ball passed just over her reach & just under the top crossbar; Danielle moved more with the ball than usual (as per Fan From Afar)
-played their usual team possession style of play only in the last 20 or so minutes of 1st half; linked passes, pressure on goal, dominated
-overall UP looked more organized, had more teamwork, but couldn’t put things together other than for those 20 minutes
-I don’t know how the time of possession was split during the game; I do know that, especially in the 2nd half, the amount of time that WA had the ball in our defensive half was considerably more than normal, certainly more than I am used to seeing
-our offensive pushes seem to strongly favor right side
-I continue to be impressed with the “Ken” ladies: Kendra & Kendall
-the leaner, meaner Kendra works hard all over the field, on both sides of the ball (as per Harry Redknapp & UPSoccerFanatic)
-Kendall has shown good ball control & passing; maybe her left foot is what is needed to get the offense involved on the left side
-Megan Sweeney impresses me with her ball handling when she turns the ball back up-field and avoids the charging offensive player; this allows her to do something other than blast the ball downfield
-at least a couple of times there appeared to be mis-communication between Hailee & the rear defenders; I would guess that it is the keeper’s responsibility to make the call since she has view of the field; Hailee is probably just a bit rusty from not playing last year
-there were several instances when UP used the give-and-go effectively; but there were other times when a player would make a pass, but then rather than looping downfield into an open spot for a return pass, she drifted alongside the play and did not open up for the pass; I’m sure this is much easier to see when sitting in the stands than when involved in the heat of the action on the field
-our rear defenders used the long kick a lot (for UP) to clear the ball, which provides, at best, a 50-50 ball
-I’m not quite as ready as others to proclaim Cloee as one of the stalwarts on defense; she is only a frosh, and she made several mis-plays on headers and clearing kicks early in the game; every one has their ups & downs; this is probably no more serious than how Sophie started the Cal game with several poor passes, but the consequences seem so much more serious when a defender makes a mis-queue; she (Cloee) also continues to use the long ball for clearance rather than retaining possession
-Molly Klier was dressed and, I presume, ready for action
-when Michelle gets the ball just about anywhere on the field, I get excited with the possibilities she might create due to her speed and ball handling; she didn’t get many opportunities in this game

WA:
-# of shots listed in box score for WA was lower than # posted on scoreboard; while not many of those shots caused worry, there were at least a couple of situations when UP was lucky the ball didn’t end up in the back of the net
-didn’t seem to link passes well; used long balls that forwards would run down; their forwards (and I suspect those on most other teams) are faster than our rear defenders, except maybe Jess
-#17 Perez is quick with good footwork on the ball
-#2 Deines is big & physical & active
-how good is WA?; we won’t know this till later in the season; I hope the raggedness of UP’s game was due more to unwarranted overconfidence by UP & WA wanting it more (GUPhantom); we need to anticipate that all our opponents will be up when they play us due our high national rank, so keeping our own house in order the best thing we can do

-I disagree with UPSoccerFanatic on the reffing; I thought the game was called relatively close; it was certainly whistled more closely than the Oregon game where most of the pushing and pulling was overlooked

To repeat - Having seen the team only on the computer, I really can't offer too many educated opinions, so far. However, one thing does seem very obvious to me, that our central defenders (I can't tell which - maybe both) are using the long ball way too much to clear, instead of keeping possession. In my experience, the long ball is quite a bit less than a 50/50 ball for the kicking team - laws of physics and motion. It might be interesting to keep a count of the number of times our back line clears a long ball and the other team wins it and comes right back at us. It was a VERY high count in the Washington game. These are things I CAN see on the computer. Taking into account that it is still early in the season, I am nonetheless a little concerned because: 1- UP possessed the ball better than this in the first two games last year, which were against UCLA and USC, and which were games I was at, and 2- this is a veteran team that maybe should not be taking as long as in most years to get the ball control game going. Nitpicking, about a team that is 3-0 and unscored on against pretty high-quality opponents? Maybe. Maybe I should not have watched the CD of the '05 championship game, but I think this team could get to that level. As someone said earlier in the post, Garrett should have their attention this week.

(I think I am right about those being the first two games last year)

fan from afar wrote:To repeat - Having seen the team only on the computer, I really can't offer too many educated opinions, so far. However, one thing does seem very obvious to me, that our central defenders (I can't tell which - maybe both) are using the long ball way too much to clear, instead of keeping possession. In my experience, the long ball is quite a bit less than a 50/50 ball for the kicking team - laws of physics and motion. It might be interesting to keep a count of the number of times our back line clears a long ball and the other team wins it and comes right back at us. It was a VERY high count in the Washington game. These are things I CAN see on the computer. Taking into account that it is still early in the season, I am nonetheless a little concerned because: 1- UP possessed the ball better than this in the first two games last year, which were against UCLA and USC, and which were games I was at, and 2- this is a veteran team that maybe should not be taking as long as in most years to get the ball control game going. Nitpicking, about a team that is 3-0 and unscored on against pretty high-quality opponents? Maybe. Maybe I should not have watched the CD of the '05 championship game, but I think this team could get to that level. As someone said earlier in the post, Garrett should have their attention this week.

(I think I am right about those being the first two games last year)

Yor computer hasn't lied to you, but there are a couple of things to consider.

Except for the first 10 or 15 minutes of the Oregon game, UP did play a possession game, and though they weren't perfect at it, They did have pretty much total control of their own end of the field, and the only reason they didn't look very smooth in the offensive end was the packed midfield of the Ducks. Last year's score was 3-1 and for most of that game there was only one goal separating the teams. This year was 3-0, and that result, if not always the shutout, was relatively secure. I prefer this year's result.

The CAL game was also about controlling the ball, and though, again, they did boot some long, I don't think a certain percentage of those shots is all bad. It keeps the defense honest on their challenges. The result was that UP controlled the ball even when all but one starter was sitting on the bench, and that starter was Cloee, the frosh. It also lead to a couple of scores. And Cloee and Jessica were on Alex Morgan 1v1 a lot. If you dispossess her and boot long, you have done a great job.

The UW game was a bit different, but if you want to make comparisons to last year, the proper one might be our game with UW last year, which was another rough and tumble affair and played similarly. That went to OT without a score, if you recall. This year we did better, and it was earlier in the season, before the team is polished. And both teams only lost a couple of players from last year, so it's a fair comparison.

UW knows us well. Those two teams see each other play 5 times a year at least (6 times this year). so there are no secrets between the teams.

I love to read the praise for Kendra. She's earning her minutes. We all saw that Charney was effective last season even as a frosh, and many expected her to be starting somewhere in midfield this season. The fact that Kendra is playing so much and so well is a testament to her full recovery from injury and her will to succeed. She was missed last year especially come playoff time. Certainly a lot of factors besides the coach's decision will influence who lines up at the mid positions as the season progresses.

There was one play that I thought could've turned the tide and inspire a UW comeback. I thought for sure the Huskies were going be awarded a PK when it "looked" like ... (I think it was Perez).. was tackled just inside the box. She made a move on her mark, found some free space and started on a nice break away before one of our defenders smartly took her down. The ref judged it to be a free kick....(still dangerous)....just outside the top of the box. It was an oh-oh moment. When I didn't see a whole lot of complaining by the home team about it being free kick instead of a PK...I assumed it was a good call. Whew! Anyway, they couldn't take advantage of the free kick either.

GO PILOTS!!!

Michelle Olivier took her down.

As to the style of play it was very hot and I think the players got tired. And some of our midfield did not play up to their usual standard.

I'd be happier if left-sided players were comfortable using their left foot so that we could use the full width of the field.

Cloee did not look as sharp as she did on Friday when she was the only one on the team who played 90 minutes - most of it guarding the leading scorer from the recent U20 world cup and playing her out of the game. Good enough for me.

Harry Redknapp wrote:Michelle Olivier took her down.

As to the style of play it was very hot and I think the players got tired. And some of our midfield did not play up to their usual standard.

I'd be happier if left-sided players were comfortable using their left foot so that we could use the full width of the field.

Cloee did not look as sharp as she did on Friday when she was the only one on the team who played 90 minutes - most of it guarding the leading scorer from the recent U20 world cup and playing her out of the game. Good enough for me.

I dunno, harry. They may not have started clicking, but I don't think it has a lot to do with not having a left.

Take a look at the second to the last score here, which was with the left:
http://www.portlandpilots.com/custompages/Videos/091208womensweb.mov
as was the first goal here:
http://www.portlandpilots.com/custompages/Videos/091408womensweb.mov

and then consider Kendall's score against the Ducks was with the left.

If you are comparing to last year's left side, I submit Megan isn't a fair comparison just yet.

I agree, Geezer - Things may not be clicking yet, but Elli has a good left foot.

It's impossible to discuss this without being negative about some players, so apologies but ...

"Elli has a good left foot" But the person playing behind her does not. At risk of violating the practice of criticism of individual players, it seemed clear to us on Sunday that Megan Sweeney favors her right foot strongly. It leads to her cutting inside often and narrows the options of play. Elli hardly touched the ball in the first half.

Geezer - I was talking about the left side of the field. Agree that Dani scored very nicely with her left foot. As did Kendall against the Ducks, but neither of those are plays that developed down the left side.

I've seen all three of the games so far and I think that there has been a lot more play wide right than wide left.

I think that it will be interesting to see what happens if Kendall continues to develop and show well. If she looks good enough to start then it could result in a change to the starting line up. I like Elli a lot and it seems to me that she has to feature in the line up somewhere.

I was also at the game. I love our team, and as I read these posts it just becomes obvious that we as fans are seriously spoiled rotten! Haha. It takes time for a #3 team to gel, and we don't need to roll on all cylinders yet. Let's save that for the tourney.

Yes, we will develop a better possession game, however, our opportunities were far more dangerous than UW's. That game could have easily ended with a 4-1 victory. We got lucky once when Kelsey came out of the goal, but, UW was lucky several times. We will convert more of those as the season progresses.

I'm tired of posters criticising players in posts. Many of these players could whoop the posters criticizing them in a game. I felt like our defense played well. Cloe cleared everything in site, and Sweeney did an exceptional job setting up the left side of the field.

Stop complaining about the small scratch in the Mercedes Benz.

athleticjames wrote:

Stop complaining about the small scratch in the Mercedes Benz.

A chuckled over that. Good point. It's NCAA D1, not the WPS. Being concerned over who doesn't play as well off their left foot does seem a little unrealistic in regard to expectations. Not everyone on this team is going to play at the next level. I really think that if Garrett believed players were a liability on the field they wouldn't be playing much, let alone starting.

athleticjames wrote:


I'm tired of posters criticising players in posts. Many of these players could whoop the posters criticizing them in a game.

I agree that bashing players is out of place on this forum. However, I have seen practically no criticizing of individual players here, and what I have seen I consider VERY gentle, and generally constructive. I think it is entirely appropriate for fans to discuss the teams we root for - who should be OSU's starting quarterback, who should be batting cleanup, who should be in a starting lineup, and whether it would help to have players with good left feet playing on the left (or not). I don't think anyone here is trying to coach the team or criticize the coaching. Everyone here understands that Garrett is the resident expert, but as fans, we should feel free to express AND DISCUSS different opinions, and we should not be expected to just be mindless cheerleaders.

Regarding your 2nd comment, SO WHAT!?! Are you really saying that, because a person can't play soccer at that level, that person can't possibly have an informed opinion? Wow!! I coached high school soccer in my early 60's, long past the age I could play with my players. Are you saying that therefore I had no right to constructively criticize my players?

FFA,

Couldn't agree more with the being a good player and being able to discuss the game bit. I played soccer until only the 8th grade and then switched to the other football, consequently I played college football. So because I didn't play soccer I cant possibly see when something on the pitch doesn't work, and even if I can see what isn't working I shouldn't talk about it because I am not good enough to do it?

I think that sometimes non-players make great coaches... regardless of sport. Look at the NBA, Stan Van Gundy, Lawrence Frank etc...
Sometimes, Soccer people, or Basketball people, or Football people get so set in a way that things should be that they see no alternative way of doing things, and strategy becomes stagnant.

I think that is part of what I love about this forum is that we have people with various backgrounds and various fields of expertise. This is OUR place, if some want to discuss what went wrong in a 2-0 victory I think that is perfectly fine. Myself I appreciate those that refuse to bury their heads in the sand and say its ok that we became one dimensional and only attacked up one flank, and gave up the run of play in the second half, we won.

I think that when you become content to win, and not strive for perfection, that's when things come off the tracks.

I don't think the constructive comments have been given in a spirit of maliciousness and seem to be within reason for a forum like this. I was a high school and college coach and don't find this sort of discussion to be out-of-bounds.

I'm generally in agreement with the past few comments. As an additional one, if we can't to some extent say what we thought went wrong, there's no way for someone who disagrees to give us good information that will help us understand why what was happening actually was ok. Recently, I got some very good information on defensive tactics from the Geez, as well as a link to further information on defensive tactics, that was very helpful. That partly occurred because I expressed some concern (on PN) about something I'd seen. Having that information actually has made watching the games more fun, because I'm now looking at how the players work together to pressure the ball, provide cover if our defender gets beat, and prevent a clear path to the goal.

I know that at the same time it's good to have some sensitivity about the discussion process, and I think we're all trying to do our best to make good judgments about that.

Back to the UW game: I think fatigue played a big part in the way the game played out. We dominated the first half, but UW had us mostly in our end in the second half. They had played on Wednesday and had time to recover, and we had played a hard, if exhilarating, game on Friday. I think UW was well aware of that and did everything they could to take advantage of our fatigue. More power to them, that's what they should have done. One of the things I always think about during the season is where our players are in the team's overall conditioning program. I know that the players have been doing a lot of weight work, starting early in the summer and I believe still continuing. I know from experience, that can cause fatigue and drain reserves. From what I've read in the past, I know the staff has a staged conditioning program they run the players through with a view to peaking for the NCAA Tournament. With that kind of program, you have to be willing to take risks as you go through the season, doing things that may make you tired now but that will help maximize the peak at the end. In that kind of program, the heavy duty work comes earlier, with speed and agility work coming towards the end. I don't know, but I suspect that had something to do with how the second half went.

I've also been thinking about the fact that Garrett only used two subs for the game. That had to be intentional, particularly given he had Charney on the bench but didn't bring her in to relieve someone (unless she's a little dinged up). Could he be wanting to let the starting players know that they need to be thinking about playing back to back games against top teams and being out there for the full 90 minutes of both games? Last year, the team for obvious reasons had a more "lots of subs" approach. Maybe this in part was wanting to get out of that mindset?

I always try to remind myself that the coaches know a lot more than we do about what's going on within the program. It doesn't prevent me from having my own opinions and wondering why they're doing something and expressing my thoughts, but I usually assume they have their reasons. I'd sure like to know what they are, but it's a characteristic of the program to keep things pretty internal to the program, and I don't really mind that. It gives us lots of opportunities to speculate! Regarding the UW game, I've actually speculated to myself that maybe the staff saw it as an opportunity to practice bunkering in to defend a lead. That doesn't seem like the Pilots, but who knows?

Playing one game within 40 hours of another may present a bit of a fatigue factor, but the larger between-game issue may be preparation time specific to the opponent -- generally the longer the better, one would think. Both Oregon and Washington seemed well-prepared for the Pilots.

The more significant fatigue factor, it seems to me, is the within-game fatigue. No one can run full-blast for ninety minutes. Subs are thus very relevant, but the fatigue issue must be balanced off against the flow of the play, the match-ups, and so on.

Of course, smart players know how to pace themselves during the game. For example, I've noticed that Sophie, much like Christine once did, goes hard when she has real opportunities to do something positive, but otherwise conserves her energy.

The season conditioning schedule also likely matters, as UPSF pointed out. We know from track and swimming, for example, that the best training regimen is to continue to train hard through the first and middle parts of the season but to taper with more rest before the contests(s) where one is seeking peak performance. The data are there to prove it.

Yes, and when you beat someone while you're training through, you own them.

fan from afar wrote:

athleticjames wrote:


I'm tired of posters criticising players in posts. Many of these players could whoop the posters criticizing them in a game.

I agree that bashing players is out of place on this forum. However, I have seen practically no criticizing of individual players here, and what I have seen I consider VERY gentle, and generally constructive. I think it is entirely appropriate for fans to discuss the teams we root for - who should be OSU's starting quarterback, who should be batting cleanup, who should be in a starting lineup, and whether it would help to have players with good left feet playing on the left (or not). I don't think anyone here is trying to coach the team or criticize the coaching. Everyone here understands that Garrett is the resident expert, but as fans, we should feel free to express AND DISCUSS different opinions, and we should not be expected to just be mindless cheerleaders.

Regarding your 2nd comment, SO WHAT!?! Are you really saying that, because a person can't play soccer at that level, that person can't possibly have an informed opinion? Wow!! I coached high school soccer in my early 60's, long past the age I could play with my players. Are you saying that therefore I had no right to constructively criticize my players?

My apologies. I just personally feel like we should leave the coaching job to Garrett Smith and the staff. That's just my opinion. He's doing a great job, and the team is doing well. I believe that these are student athletes who are students first. I prefer to let the coach coach. I'd love to have some players post here and PN, and I'd prefer to create a safe forum for them to do that. Peace.

We all have one thing in common... we love the Pilots! I guess I don't understand how discussing game play on a site like this could be called coaching. That is the purpose of this forum. No one here is speaking as a know-it-all. All of these women are amazing! We are spoiled by their talent! I love it! I say keep the talk going. I have learned a lot from everyone here and all of our girls.

I take to heart the advice of coach Tony DiCicco, World Cup-winner, who advises other coaches to "catch the players doing good" and praise them to raise them up. I endorse this approach more than any other and thoroughly respect Garrett Smith on the UP bench.
That doesn't mean I won't speculate about lineups, scores, formations, substitution patterns or whatever else strikes my fancy. No one put me in charge, and these are just my opinions. We all have the right to raise questions in this open forum. Yet respect for the players should be a given.
The golden rule abides.