SDSU

This team has a lot of players in positions they never played before at this level. Emma always subbed in for Jess the last two years and showed pretty good skills there but she's playing inside this year. Ellen played a couple of positions but wasn't really expected to move up and down the sideline like this year. Sarah normally played midfield and I do not remember her ever subbing for Elli, where she's playing this year. Halley is playing a new position but one would never know it. Same for Dani. That being said, too many players are just too tentative, whether it's due to a lack of confidence or just being out of position. The point was made about the number of games played last year by some of these players but the players we have generally raved about have been the ones who have played aggressively from the start, regardless of experience, such as Micaela last year, Kendall the year before, Megan and others in earlier years. They didn't need ten games to get things figured out, primarily that the aggressor usually wins in this game. Just think of the number of freshmen who the Pilots have faced the last two years who attacked always. I have been concerned by the number of possessions this team gives away, the so-called unforced errors, and then it seems that the opponent always finds the open team mate, just like the Pilots always did in past years. I don't remember the great Pilot teams making so many soft passes that are easily intercepted or trying weak heel passes in heavy traffic along the sideline or getting caught up in little passing games along the sideline that ended up being loss of possession. I don't think Christine or Megan or Angie would have tolerated such play. The team is not using space well or controlling possession well at this point. The more these things continue, the more concerned I must be about the ultimate success of this team. There was more of the style we have become accustomed to in the second half against WSU but that needs to become the norm very quickly and it needs to be adopted by every single player from the opening kick-off.

cmp, I understand your point of view, but I have confidence that the coaching staff knows what they are doing. They have been fairly successful.

PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:

color me purple wrote:A_Fan Perhaps I should clarify my point more clearly. It's not how many games each player played. One can show stats any way they choose. What I'm referring to is actual development of a player in a particular position. For instance, many times last year both Ellie and Jess initiated the offense by the thier agressiveness as outside backs. I don't remember too many times if ever that either Jess or Ellie came out, even in games that were very lopsided. All I'm saying is that those important positions are hard to master and it would have been beneficial to have given other players time at those postions last year so that we would have more experience at those postions.

Go Pilots

I see what you're saying here. I wish college stats tracked minutes played for field players because Elli and Jess would have been among the leaders if not the top two.

So this year's outside backs are going to need some time to get used to a new position. I look forward to seeing how things progress. These things have a way of working out in Portland.

If a person really wanted to do it, especially to test whether his or her recollections are correct, it would be possible to come pretty close to reconstructing exactly who played where and for how many minutes. The play-by-play data in the archived boxscores for games tell who substituted for whom and exactly when during the course of the game. One would have to do some guessing since player A could substitute for B, but with other players shifting positions so that although it would be a player substitution it wouldn't necessarily be player A subbing into player B's position. Still, some time and effort could give a good picture.

Wow! A lot of the sky is falling after 3 games... they're a young team, give them a chance to gel. There have been a number of years that started out somewhat shaky as the girls get their feet under them.

As far as the SDSU game, keep in mind it was on the road and for a young team, the first time on the road can have more than its distractions with sleeping in a hotel bed, not doing your normal pre-game routine, etc.

Watching the games that I've seen this year, there have been a lot of good moments with good players that show signs of promise for the future. It will be interesting to see where they are in the coming weeks. Of course the reality may be that this is a rebuilding year for the Pilots.

keeper wrote:Wow! A lot of the sky is falling after 3 games... they're a young team, give them a chance to gel. There have been a number of years that started out somewhat shaky as the girls get their feet under them.

As far as the SDSU game, keep in mind it was on the road and for a young team, the first time on the road can have more than its distractions with sleeping in a hotel bed, not doing your normal pre-game routine, etc.

Watching the games that I've seen this year, there have been a lot of good moments with good players that show signs of promise for the future. It will be interesting to see where they are in the coming weeks. Of course the reality may be that this is a rebuilding year for the Pilots.

Haha, good point. Looking at all the seasons online to 2001 ( the entire online record databank ), UP has scored 5 or fewer goals in the first three games in half of those seasons, for a total of 23-18 in goals scored/allowed for those games. Those same seasons had combined totals of 285-63.

One of those seasons was especially memorable. the Pilots scored 4 goals and allowed the same number in the first three games, lost the first two of those, and went on to score 44 goals and allow only 8 more the rest of the year. they did stumble twice more, losing to the previous year's National champion and to the eventual conference champion, but redeemed themselves.

Oh yeah, they won a national championship beating the #1 ranked team in a shootout and then the reigning National Champion in the tournament final.

Honestly, I don't know if being on the road is a valid excuse for losing games. I think if anything, that being on the road provides less distractions, because there's nothing to do except think about the game. You don't have to worry about classes or homework, you get to sleep on time, you get solid meals, you spend time with the team, there is a little less pressure to get a result being the away team, there are a lot of positives to being on the road. Merlo has basically been a fortress for the girls the last few years, because the team has taken incredible advantage of the large dimensions of the field to develop its possession oriented style and the crowds help a lot. But as fans we have been accustomed to seeing the girls win anywhere they play.

This thread is starting to look a lot like the posts at the start of a previous season when we had new players in some of those same spots. Same concerns about the defense gelling, the offense not gelling, wide play not being what we wanted, forwards not getting shots and not finishing, not playing well in the first away weekend, etc. A_Fan and I both witnessed that game, too.

https://www.pilotnation.net/t176-9-9-up-vs-purdue?highlight=Purdue

That game had the added drama that We lost both Rapinoes for the year, as it turned out.

But the defense gelled, the offense clicked, and we went on to a fine season.

I'm with Keeper and The Geez. This thread went south with the "maybe the coaching staff..." blah, blah and has unfortunately continued. Methinks the ice cream is too cold.

OldePilot wrote:I'm with Keeper and The Geez. This thread went south with the "maybe the coaching staff..." blah, blah and has unfortunately continued. Methinks the ice cream is too cold.

Welcome to every match thread for every team that ever lost a game in the history of the internet.

It's a loss in the third game of the year with a lot of new personnel. I say we either change the entire lineup or fire the whole coaching staff. Or maybe both.

Well tooted, Trumpet.

Agreed: it's too early for despair.

Nonetheless, in the three matches I've seen this fall, this team looks weaker than the outstanding Pilots' sides to which we have become accustomed. We've become used to seeing the Pilots dominate possession and scoring opportunities against all but the very best opponents (Stanford, UNC, Notre Dame, UCLA), especially at home. That didn't happen against Miami, FSU, or WSU.

Perhaps this team will be successful with a more direct style or will improve as the year goes on, but remember that all the other teams are also opening their seasons and can be expected to improve as well. From what I've seen so far, I'm expecting 5 or so losses this year, an open race with BYU and SCU for the WCC title, and a #3 to #5 regional NCAA seeding.

And, quite frankly, I'm totally OK with that. We're not going to dominate every year and we've had a good run. There is still much to love about this program even if the team is #20 rather than #2. We can just hope that this year is a rebuilding year and not the beginning of a downward trend in recruiting and on-field success.

I always enjoy coming here and seeing how the fans are perceiving the games and the team. I agree with many observations from all sides. I don't think its time to abandon ship, I'll still enjoy watching the Pilots as long as they put a team on the field but after what I've seen this year, I think I'll have to go with "rebuilding year" as the correct theme. We'll see how things develop but they were lucky to get away with a win from Florida and they were pretty evenly matched by WSU. One huge clearance by Dani, a defensive flub and a nice breakaway finish were all that were needed against the run of play. The level of women's football has risen so high, every team we play is fielding girls that have played in hundreds of games. You really need standouts to dominate, like the Canadian #21 for WSU (forget her name). Players in new positions? Road game? Lack of midfield creativity? Forwards that start their runs late and don't see the space? Huge gaping holes between defenders? Being outheaded in the "stopper" position, giveaways all over the field? What's the source of the consternation of the fans? Is it the 2-1 record, or the realization that the team has a ton of work to rise to the level that awaits them in the upcoming schedule? I'm confident they will get better, but from my viewing so far, I'm thinking the necessary better will be a year away and not a month. And like some other poster said, "that's OK".

Not to fan any flames, but the post about how being on the road providing fewer distractions so that you can focus brought a number of humorous memories back. Let's see which story should I pass along, the one about the freshmen taking one of the team's vans the night before we were playing Washington State to roadtrip to Idaho (drinking age 19 vs. 21) ... the one about one of my teammates learning we were in the same hotel as the UCLA womens soccer team and they were at the pool... the one about the schools van having a mechanical problem that required service in Grants Pass, so that we ended up arriving in Chico at 3am for a 12:00 game... Yep, all you have to think about when you're on the road is the game.

keeper wrote:Not to fan any flames, but the post about how being on the road providing fewer distractions so that you can focus brought a number of humorous memories back. Let's see which story should I pass along, the one about the freshmen taking one of the team's vans the night before we were playing Washington State to roadtrip to Idaho (drinking age 19 vs. 21) ... the one about one of my teammates learning we were in the same hotel as the UCLA womens soccer team and they were at the pool... the one about the schools van having a mechanical problem that required service in Grants Pass, so that we ended up arriving in Chico at 3am for a 12:00 game... Yep, all you have to think about when you're on the road is the game.

Plus, the data for DI women's soccer show that there is a distinct advantage to playing at home. To put it in boring RPI terms, on average a home team performs as though its RPI were 0.008 higher than it really is and an away team performs as though its RPI were 0.008 lower. In RPI ranking terms, that 0.016 combined shift represents about 10 ranking positions. That doesn't take away from the tenor of the discussion, it's just to clarify that it is not advantageous to play on the road.

As I was reading thru the threads, I was struck by the Clive Charles saying that UPSoccerFanatic has at the bottom of his posts "If you have fun, you will win -- and will make me very, very happy" What I have seen over the past few years is the "fun factor" has gone away from this team. I don't see enthusiasm on the bench.. I don't see the love of the game on the field. Being around soccer for quite some time, I truly believe that if you are playing under pressure all the time (which I believe the coaching staff is part to blame for placing pressure and expectations on the girls that may be unrealistic) then it is a self fulfilling prophecy in regards to winning games which might be what is happening. If the coaching staff could instill the love of soccer back into the girls, then you may see a different team on the field and it may suprise you at the results. (even with the team that you have) This is only a thought based on looking at a Clive Charles quote!

Interesting thought. I haven't seen that there is no joy or anything. Perhaps expectations are higher, but they have always been high here and teams have always worked at getting better. I don't expect players to be happy if they lose, do you?

Here's another Clive quote

Winning is not everything, in fact it is just something, but the ambition, the want to do as well as you can is important, and that has to be based on an idea of what real success is. Young fans, young players who turn out for their schools, can take that sort of thing into their everyday lives. Why should anyone be satisfied by second best? Again, there is nothing wrong with coming in second, but that shouldn’t stop you from trying to be first or even a better second

And I think Clive had a realistic view of competition and adversity. It's not all just fun, but a lot of stress in the process.

A difficulty young people have today, not just young people maybe, is that they always seem to need or want more. It seems harder to make the most of any little opportunity. A place in the side is not enough, it has to be a guarantee of a place. The reality of course is that we mostly just get the one chance and it is up to no one but us to make the most of it. You miss a chance on goal, no one is going to say, ‘Shame, why don’t you have another pop?’ The next chance you get it will be up to you to make the best of. I think it is the job of a coach to teach this sort of thing. Sport gives opportunities to learn about this stuff in a very real way. We do that in Portland and I know it works. It’s not that young people are just ‘bad’ or ‘spoiled’, that’s too easy, although some undoubtedly are, but in the main it’s because they haven’t had the chance to learn the lessons. We have to learn these things by experience – no one can just be told and then get it

I've been to a couple of practices and there are plenty of smiles and everyone seems to be having fun. Maybe it's an illusion.

The trees, once young, freshly planted.... Growth and surround, comfort and security. Roots too long ..... siphoned energy from above....
One day..... the trees were gone..... For a time there was no trees.
The "P" gave balance to all that is.........and will be
Re-planted..... called upon; ....new growth to this place....

Trenchcoat

Trenchcoat has it right. The sky is falling because they cut down the trees.