What kind of soccer is that? Just playing meaningless possession with few final third attempts at penetration. You play that way when you're up a goal or two. They scored yes, but a waste of energy.
What kind of soccer is that? Just playing meaningless possession with few final third attempts at penetration. You play that way when you're up a goal or two. They scored yes, but a waste of energy.
Your comment shows your ignorance about the game. The energy being wasted was Stanford's. They were worn out from chasing.
Let me guess. You're one of those guys that likes bootball - bypass the midfield and get it up to the big, fast, and brutish forward.
Seriously? When you have the ball, the other team can't score. So repeatedly changing the point of attack shows patience as well as de facto defense. The patience of that build-up led to the opportunity to probe a deep territory via a diagonal run off the back shoulder, a classy Cruyff-style chop to serve a back post run, time for numbers to get forward in the box, an intelligent header back across the face of goal instead of a low-percentage attempt at the near post covered by the keeper, and well-anticipated, optimistic positioning by the third-now-second attacker. Oh: and a game-winning goal. What's your complaint?
Seriously? When you have the ball, the other team can't score. So repeatedly changing the point of attack shows patience as well as de facto defense. The patience of that build-up led to the opportunity to probe a deep territory via a diagonal run off the back shoulder, a classy Cruyff-style chop to serve a back post run, time for numbers to get forward in the box, an intelligent header back across the face of goal instead of a low-percentage attempt at the near post covered by the keeper, and well-anticipated, optimistic positioning by the third-now-second attacker. Oh: and a game-winning goal. What's your complaint?
Very well said. If I can add, without insulting anyone, that a goal of the possession and passing from side to side, front to back, is to spread out the other team more increasing the chance of finding an opening or the opportunity for a striker to take on a defender 1 v 1. Yes...one could argue that, in the end, the same cross could have come from the same rapid forward play that is seen in America, but it is more likely to happen and result in a goal when the other team is spread out more.
nice! Stanford looked a little slow and lethargic. Doubling up or being a little more energetic on a press may have caused Akron to rush a pass and lose possession.
nice! Stanford looked a little slow and lethargic. Doubling up or being a little more energetic on a press may have caused Akron to rush a pass and lose possession.
They did look tired. The game was in the 80th minute and they probably had been chasing most of the game because that is Akron's normal style of play. It eventually wears teams down.
It's soccer the way it was meant to be played. That's the kind of soccer it is.
It's called POSSESSION. It's obvious that you don't have a grasp of how sports based on possession work. Hockey, lacrosse, basketball, soccer.... they're all similar.
Semi finals Friday night on espn u. Akron looked excellent. As does Indiana and Hamilton,Ma.'s Justin Rennicks. Guessing Akron v. Indiana in a great final Sunday night.
What kind of soccer is that? Just playing meaningless possession with few final third attempts at penetration. You play that way when you're up a goal or two. They scored yes, but a waste of energy.
Wait, let me guess, you're a high school soccer coach? Thought so.
Comment