Charney is officially a Bruin

Here's her Roster bio --OK, it's her Bio place holder.

http://www.uclabruins.com/sports/w-soccer/mtt/burk_charney00.html

She should be happy - she got the #10.

I'm happy for her. I hope she gets more playing time there.

Sorry it did not work out for Charney but she never lived up to the ranking she had coming out of HS and was not going to displace Keelin or Sophie in center mid and did not have the pace that we've been able to see out wide.

One would be hard pressed to find anyone to displace Sophie or Keelin.

Exactly. And to be more blunt, Sophie moved back to midfield from forward because nobody else was good enough to hold the middle.

Harry Redknapp wrote:Exactly. And to be more blunt, Sophie moved back to midfield from forward because nobody else was good enough to hold the middle.

We may be forgetting that she was recruited as a defensive mid, and that was the position she held for with the CNT. Even now, she isn't used there in a scoring position.

She went to forward because we were having problems finding a player who could play with her back to the goal. Her toughness was something Garret saw in practice when we were short handed.

Now she's a lot closer to what she came in for.

Fair comment, Geez. My point was that Sophie was settled at forward- and doing a great job there. But that there was a clear need for her presence in center mid, which is - unfortunately - an indication that Charney was not able to step up and fill that attacking midfield role.

I had thought that she (Charney) would do a good job in that role but it was not to be. Wish her well at UCLA.

Just checked:

Charney has been starting for UCLA. Played 70 minutes against Cal Poly, 47 against Wisconsin, and about 70 against Wisconsin.

Interesting observation from stats on UCLA's loss to Northwestern (from the Northwestern website): About the 25 minute mark of the first half, UCLA made 7 substitutions.

Charney wasn't in when Nwestern scored..
Either was Leroux and a bunch of others.

I'm calling this a coaching error.

Geezaldinho wrote:Charney wasn't in when Nwestern scored..
Either was Leroux and a bunch of others.

I'm calling this a coaching error.

You mean fewer subs could sometimes be better?

Who knew?...

I've always wondered about Jill Ellis's coaching. With as much talent and power as UCLA has had in the past several seasons, why is it that they couldn't win a championship?

I don't know a thing about Jill Ellis (except she seems to have some pretty impressive athletic and academic credentials).....

...... but I sure am happy to see Charney is getting some good play time. She is a very nice girl and a hard worker -> on and off the soccer pitch.

I wish her the best (except against the Pilots of course).

UJ

fwill wrote:
I've always wondered about Jill Ellis's coaching. With as much talent and power as UCLA has had in the past several seasons, why is it that they couldn't win a championship?

Very good point, fwill.

Not to be flip, but...if she's so bad, why did her Bruins beat the holy crud out of our Pilots in three of the last four quarterfinals? (I'm sick of the ROAD excuse. Great teams win on the road in all team sports. YYYEEESSS! It would be great to play on Merlo Field, with fantastic atmosphere, fanatic fans, etc.. But check the archives. We have been beaten at Merlo in big games in the past. And we have won on the road in big games in the past.)

I'm with Geez on this one...coaching error.

(And I also agree with fwill's comment; my "winning on the road" rant notwithstanding.)

FANatic wrote: I'm sick of the ROAD excuse. Great teams win on the road in all team sports.

That may be one of the Bruins' problems. If my memory serves me, the Bruins have been to the final four every year from 2004 on, and during that time have had exactly one road game during the playoffs. They've been able to win comfortably on their own field and in front of their own fans (to the extent that they have fans). One could argue that they could be helped by the "battle-hardening" that would come from having some road playoff games leading up to the College Cup.

Bill Walton once said that it's one thing for a team to make it to the quarter (or semi) finals in basketball, but it's something all together differant for a team to win the whole show.

With no disrespect to the Pilots, that is why UNC's record of 20 odd Div I Championships is so amazing. It's pretty much mind blowing.

But with that said, I sure would like to see UP play UNC in this year's championship game. That would be sweet. (I'm keeping my fingers crossed.)

BTW, UCLA plays Notre Dame on Sept 10 (in LA). That should be a test of Jill's coaching ability.

eProf wrote:

That may be one of the Bruins' problems. If my memory serves me, the Bruins have been to the final four every year from 2004 on, and during that time have had exactly one road game during the playoffs. They've been able to win comfortably on their own field and in front of their own fans (to the extent that they have fans). One could argue that they could be helped by the "battle-hardening" that would come from having some road playoff games leading up to the College Cup.

Good point, eProf. But they have gotten home field advantage for the most part for having had a great regular season record.

However, in the last two or more seasons, (my feeble brain can't remember exact details), Portland has been getting screwed out of home field in the quarterfinals by a biased and/or blind NCAA selection committee when it comes to tournament seeding. (There are more eloquent and accurate ways of saying this, I realize.)

(We've had a ton of discussions on this topic in the last few years or so. Just check out late Novembers' and Decembers' posts in the last couple years or so for a whole lot of info on this. It includes RPI and other technical indicators on seeding, that seem to really unite and ignite PN members. I believe it was all but proven by PN experts that UCLA should not have been seeded a #1, but that Portland should have, last year. Would the Pilots have won in the quarterfinals at Merlo? IMHO, probably, but not for certain.)

FANatic wrote:
Good point, eProf. But they have gotten home field advantage for the most part for having had a great regular season record.

the reason we went on the road wasn't always having the worse record, Have you forgotten the travel rules? We traveled in 2005 with the best record in the country.

They had their shots. They got favored with home dates as much by geography as by merit. They blew it every year.

Right on, Uncle John.

(Sometimes when I think of Christine, I think of Bill Walton, circa 1977...)

FAN,

I remember those dicussions last year (concerning UCLA getting home field advantage) and I remember the argument against UP - UCLA had a much better "strength of schedule".

This year that argument will be much harder to make considering who the girls are playing in non-conferance play (Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Penn St, Stanford, and so on and so forth).

Now all the girls have to do is beat those teams -> which they will.

No worries.

- UJ -

Geezaldinho wrote:

the reason we went on the road wasn't always having the worse record, Have you forgotten the travel rules? We traveled in 2005 with the best record in the country.

They had their shots. They got favored with home dates as much by geography as by merit. They blew it every year.

No, I haven't forgotten the travel rule.

One might say that the Pilots' geography has cost them. One might also say, that in the last four year's quarterfinals, "They had their shots...They blew it every year."

I now defer to the Geez!!!
He knows more about college soccer in his little finger, than I know in my big mouth. One thing is for certain, I believe in the Pilots year in and year out. And if the stars all line up...I think the 2010 version has as good a shot at the title, as anyone else. And I hope this team can make it to the final four College Cup, whether their games are played at home or on the moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uncle John wrote:

FAN,

I remember those dicussions last year (concerning UCLA getting home field advantage) and I remember the argument against UP - UCLA had a much better "strength of schedule".

This year that argument will be much harder to make considering who the girls are playing in non-conferance play (Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Penn St, Stanford, and so on and so forth).

Now all the girls have to do is beat those teams -> which they will.

No worries.

- UJ -

I totally agree, - UJ - .

Our schedule this year could be called a real "Murderer's Row!" .

I do hope your faith that we will win them all, will come to fruition. We are currently 4-0, and I have been pretty nervous for all 90 minutes of every match. Oh, for a rout I would give almost anything! (Except the Pliny I stole from Geez. Shhhh! I don't think he has realized it yet. If he finds out.........)

FAN

FAN,

I had a vision last night.

And in that vision I saw a rout in UP's very near future (and that rout wasn't AGAINST UP).

But I have a question for you and the Geez.

Is there someplace up in Seattle that serves Pliny?

If so, have one (or two) for me.

-UJ-

eProf wrote:

FANatic wrote: I'm sick of the ROAD excuse. Great teams win on the road in all team sports.

That may be one of the Bruins' problems. If my memory serves me, the Bruins have been to the final four every year from 2004 on, and during that time have had exactly one road game during the playoffs. They've been able to win comfortably on their own field and in front of their own fans (to the extent that they have fans). One could argue that they could be helped by the "battle-hardening" that would come from having some road playoff games leading up to the College Cup.

I'm not sure the lack of road games explains UCLA's difficulties. Look how well North Carolina has done, and apart from the pre-scheduled College Cup (i.e., semi-final and final) games at "neutral" sites, the records as far back as are available over the internet (and via the NCAA's College Cup programs) do not show North Carolina having played any away games.

As a point of interest, early this year I did a study of how home teams have done in the quarterfinals. My study covered 2000 through 2009, a period of 10 years. In that period, of 40 quarterfinal games, the home team won 34. In other words, the home team in the quarters won 85% of the time. Yes, a team has to be prepared to win a quarterfinal game on the road. But, truth be told, home field in the quarters is a huge advantage.

85% of the time.......now that IS some disturbing data.

However, it's moot..... because this year the girls WILL have home field advantage.

They just have to WILL it to happen.

(And win their games of course).

UPSoccerFanatic wrote:

As a point of interest, early this year I did a study of how home teams have done in the quarterfinals. My study covered 2000 through 2009, a period of 10 years. In that period, of 40 quarterfinal games, the home team won 34. In other words, the home team in the quarters won 85% of the time. Yes, a team has to be prepared to win a quarterfinal game on the road. But, truth be told, home field in the quarters is a huge advantage.

UPSF -

I can't argue with cold, hard numbers like 85%. Yes, by all means, "home field in the quarters is a huge advantage." Quite sobering, actually.

UNC having apparently never having to play road games, according to your research, might go a long way in explaining their apparent "invincibility", and near complete dominance in titles won.

But - we've lost four straight quarters on the road. Does that mean then that unless we have home field advantage in the quarters, the Pilots are doomed to repeat history until perhaps they reach that 85% loss point?

FAN

FANatic wrote:

UPSoccerFanatic wrote:

As a point of interest, early this year I did a study of how home teams have done in the quarterfinals. My study covered 2000 through 2009, a period of 10 years. In that period, of 40 quarterfinal games, the home team won 34. In other words, the home team in the quarters won 85% of the time. Yes, a team has to be prepared to win a quarterfinal game on the road. But, truth be told, home field in the quarters is a huge advantage.

UPSF .... But - we've lost four straight quarters on the road. Does that mean then that unless we have home field advantage in the quarters, the Pilots are doomed to repeat history until perhaps they reach that 85% loss point?

FAN

Nah. One of those six quarter-final road wins came in 2002 at the expense of Stanford, courtesy of the Pilots, if my memory serves me correctly. With the four recent quarters road losses, that means we're now due for a win, even if on the road.

GO PILOTS!