2016-17 D1 Women's soccer thread!!!

Bernie Sanders said:
The world ( and a soccer team) needs ditch diggers too.
Click to expand...

That being the case, better to be diggin' ditches at base of Bel Air than at the under the 110/Jefferson:eek:

But I digress....While I don't have a dog in the pac-12 fight, It sure is turning out to be a fun fight to watch.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
The world ( and a soccer team) needs ditch diggers too.
The right mix of talent and team chemistry
Click to expand...

Not to distract from all the smack talk, but this is a really great point. Can't believe how many times you see this play out at all levels of sport. All-star teams sent to international competitions, NBA & MLB teams made up of high-priced free agent stars, Division 1 rosters stocked with National Team level talent...even down to youth club teams pieced together by recruiting all the local hot-shots from other teams: so many times, despite an obvious talent advantage, they will get run off the pitch/field/court by a well coached, motivated team composed of role-players, complimentary pieces, built around a few A+ talent leaders who all know their jobs and commit to being on the same page day in and day out. This is why team sport outcomes are so much harder to predict. You don't win championships with resumes.
 
Zerodenero said:
While I'm not in the know, a Bruin loss to their cross town rivals can't be good for Cromwell......especially considering the plethora (platoons) of Talent she has at her command.
Click to expand...
She gets a free pass with Pugh and Sanchez coming in next year, no matter what happens this year.
 
Mystery Train said:
Not to distract from all the smack talk, but this is a really great point. Can't believe how many times you see this play out at all levels of sport. All-star teams sent to international competitions, NBA & MLB teams made up of high-priced free agent stars, Division 1 rosters stocked with National Team level talent...even down to youth club teams pieced together by recruiting all the local hot-shots from other teams: so many times, despite an obvious talent advantage, they will get run off the pitch/field/court by a well coached, motivated team composed of role-players, complimentary pieces, built around a few A+ talent leaders who all know their jobs and commit to being on the same page day in and day out. This is why team sport outcomes are so much harder to predict. You don't win championships with resumes.
Click to expand...
Please explain then why it's been a decade since the last mid-major conference school has won a Womens NCAA D1 Soccer Championship.
 
Zerodenero said:
Valid point...same can be said for other popular collegiate sports (tho m-trains breakdown sure sounds good).
Click to expand...
Men's NCAA B-Ball is an exception though, because NBA ready players can declare for the draft after their freshmen year. This leaves the elite programs needing to usher in underclassmens year in and year out, leveling the playing field for mid-major schools like UConn with a starting line-up comprised of Jr and Sr players.
 
offthecrossbar said:
Please explain then why it's been a decade since the last mid-major conference school has won a Womens NCAA D1 Soccer Championship.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you do it without talent. Read my post again. I said you need some A+ talent as leaders to build around with role players. And no where did I say that mid-majors compete with Power 5 Div 1 teams. I was running with a point that Bern made about needing a blend of chemistry WITH talent. That Colorado is doing so well in the Pac 12 is case in point. Never said talent wasn't part of the equation. But I can give you tons of other examples where the "all-star" collection of talent failed against a less talented, but more organized outfit. If you still disagree with me on that point, I'll be happy to put together a list.
 
Mystery Train said:
I didn't say you do it without talent. Read my post again. I said you need some A+ talent as leaders to build around with role players. And no where did I say that mid-majors compete with Power 5 Div 1 teams. I was running with a point that Bern made about needing a blend of chemistry WITH talent. That Colorado is doing so well in the Pac 12 is case in point. Never said talent wasn't part of the equation. But I can give you tons of other examples where the "all-star" collection of talent failed against a less talented, but more organized outfit. If you still disagree with me on that point, I'll be happy to put together a list.
Click to expand...
Okay so, Colorado is competitive this year. Are you saying they will be a top 3 Pac12 team next year?
mystery train said:
talent...even down to youth club teams pieced together by recruiting all the local hot-shots from other teams: so many times, despite an obvious talent advantage, they will get run off the pitch/field/court by a well coached, motivated team composed of role-players,complimentary pieces, built around a few A+ talentleaders who all know their jobs and commit to being on the same page day in and day out.
Click to expand...
 
offthecrossbar said:
Okay so, Colorado is competitive this year. Are you saying they will be a top 3 Pac12 team next year?
Click to expand...
Maybe they will. I don't know. But any team that wants to be at that level needs "ditch diggers" and role players. You disagree? I think if you check out the champions of almost every major sport in the US and internationally you will see that they don't do it by simply signing the most talented starters at every position. Patriots and Spurs. Liecster City. Hell, even big bad Barca gets their talented guys to play specific roles and stay organized in a system. Do you think that the most talented collection of individual players will always win the championship regardless of team chemistry and role players? If so, you should talk to the 2004 Lakers.
 
Mystery train said:
Division 1 rosters stocked with National Team level talent...even down to youth club teams pieced together byrecruiting all the local hot-shots from other teams: so many times, despite an obvious talent advantage, they will get run off the pitch/field/court by a well coached, motivated team composed of role-players,complimentary pieces, built around a few A+ talentleaders who all know their jobs and commit to beingon the same page day in and day out.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm new at this, but your post above does states, "D1 rosters stocked with National team level of talent. Will still get run off the pitch by a well coached, motivated team composed of roll players, built around a few A+ talent leaders."

Maybe some times but, come tourney time the teams with a roster full of blue chippers will win out in the end. Refer to the last decade of Women NCAA D1 Champions.

If LMU gets an tournament bid, noway my DDs school runs the table.
 
Mystery Train said:
Maybe they will. I don't know. But any team that wants to be at that level needs "ditch diggers" and role players. You disagree? I think if you check out the champions of almost every major sport in the US and internationally you will see that they don't do it by simply signing the most talented starters at every position. Patriots and Spurs. Liecster City. Hell, even big bad Barca gets their talented guys to play specific roles and stay organized in a system. Do you think that the most talented collection of individual players will always win the championship regardless of team chemistry and role players? If so, you should talk to the 2004 Lakers.
Click to expand...
In any team sport, it's the coaches job to put the pieces together. The more elite players a team has the chances of winning is greater.

In the modern NBA a Big 3 is needed out of a starting 5.

Cavs with Lebron, Irving and Love (was supposed to be the 3rd), probably more like Thompson.
Miami with Lebron, Wade and Bosh.
Spurs with Duncan, Parker and Ginobili
Warriors with Thompson, Curry, Green and now Durant.
 
Mystery Train said:
Maybe they will. I don't know. But any team that wants to be at that level needs "ditch diggers" and role players. You disagree? I think if you check out the champions of almost every major sport in the US and internationally you will see that they don't do it by simply signing the most talented starters at every position. Patriots and Spurs. Liecster City. Hell, even big bad Barca gets their talented guys to play specific roles and stay organized in a system. Do you think that the most talented collection of individual players will always win the championship regardless of team chemistry and role players? If so, you should talk to the 2004 Lakers.
Click to expand...
Spurs actually have a Big 3; Aldredge, Parker and Leonard. As for the Lakers losing in 2004 and Shaq not offered the contract he wanted, the Lakers were 3peat champions from 2000-2002, before losingto the Pistons in Finals in 2003. If Shaq and Kobe could have co-existed who knows how many more championships they could have won together. So I wouldn't say Shaq and Kobe was a failed duo by any means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top