NCAA Women Soccer Tournament - Ellis Field and much more

1,237 Views | 3 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Carnwellag2
MidTnAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NCAA Women Soccer Tournament - Ellis Field

We turned our home field advantage over to Baylor.

Friday:
Baylor 1, #3 USC 1, Baylor advanced on Penalty Kicks (3 to 0)
Notre Dame 2, Texas A&M 2, Notre Dame advanced on Penalty Kicks (4 to 1)

Sunday:
Baylor 3, Notre Dame 2 (overtime)

People on this board have the impression that Notre Dame was a very strong team. They were tricked into thinking this because of their high [#14] RPI ranking.

Although they were a very good team, Notre Dame was NOT a Top 25 team.
They were NOT ranked in the Top 25 by the United Coaches poll, Top Drawer poll, or the Soccer America poll.

We were ranked:
United Coaches poll - #6
Soccer America poll - #7
Top Drawer poll - #4

We were definitely a better, stronger team than Notre Dame. We just did not play as well as we normally do or we would have kicked their a$$ like Baylor did.

Sadly, we chose to play one of our worst games against Notre Dame. We wasted our home field advantage. A large part of our subpar play may have been due to our playing such a weak schedule.

Notre Dame played a much stronger schedule than we did. They played three of the top five teams in the country Duke, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
We did not play any teams in the Top 10 but played three games against two Top 25 teams - Pepperdine & Florida [twice]. We won all three games.
Pepperdine: in overtime on a goal by Jimena Lopez.
Florida: (Game 1) 2-1, a regular season game on goals by Cienna Arrieta (assist - Emily Bates) and an incredible free kick by Kendall Ritchie in the second half.
(Game 2) 2-1 in overtime in the SEC Tournament on a goal by Rheagen Smith (assist Kendall Richie) and what was officially registered as an "own goal" in overtime.


Baylor definitely outplayed Notre Dame:
Shots: Baylor 19, Notre Dame 13
Shots on Goal: Baylor 8, Notre Dame 3
Saves: Baylor 1, Notre Dame 5
Corners: Baylor 6, Notre Dame 4

No matter how subpar we played against Notre Dame, we at least scored another remarkable late goal [Emily Bates] to send the game into overtime.

Stats from Notre Dame game:
Shots: TAMU 17, Notre Dame 24
Shots on Goal: TAMU 6, Notre Dame 10
Saves: TAMU 8, Notre Dame 4
Corners: TAMU 9, Notre Dame 3

We lost to Notre Dame mainly due to our lack of skills in taking penalty kicks and not having a goal keeper skilled in defending penalty kicks.

We should be playing Duke Friday instead of Baylor.

The SEC really got screwed by the NCAA in placing two of our best three teams (#1 South Carolina and #3 Florida) in the same bracket. Friday, they have to play each other in South Carolina.

Remaining Seeds
#1 Stanford, Duke, South Carolina
#2 UCLA
#3 Florida, Penn State
#4 Princeton
and Baylor

Remaining Games:
#3 Penn State at #1 Stanford
Baylor at #1 Duke
#3 Florida at #1 South Carolina
#4 Princeton at #2 UCLA

We had a hell of a fantastic season. Sadly, it ended on a devastating lost solely due to our inability to take and defend penalty kicks.

I hope there is a ton of practice in the off-season in the art of taking and defending penalty kicks so that this type of lost never happens again. Just learn how Watts takes PKs.
Expert Analysis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can keep saying nd was not good, but they beat top teams, and had draws against top teams. They had experience against top teams. In the postseason where there are no draws, that makes them dangerous, when their record and rank do not really reflect that. We still should have won, but i would have rather faced usc or baylor in the second round.
To be honest we were not really a 2 seed quality team, we were missing star players and played a bunch of weak competition to end the season. We were somewhat fortunate to be seeded where we were, and could have been a 1 seed, but that doesnt really reflect the quality of our play.
HiddenAg2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've had some more time to digest the devastating loss in PKs to Notre Dame last week and I have some more thoughts on this in response to the OP. It probably is true that ND was not as good as many of us thought but they were still a quality side because of their talent level. Remember, they almost always out-recruit A&M every year. I still put more stock into the RPI than the ridiculous polls because it's based on actual results against proven competition (either good or bad). Polls are only based on win/loss record and reputation, which is just silly. I guess you could say we should look at a Sagarin type rating system for more accuracy but there isn't one. ND did play a much tougher schedule than A&M and thus were not intimidated and better prepared for a game against a top flight team in the tourney.

I stated in my ND game thread comments that one of the reasons we didn't perform better during the game is because it took time to adjust to ND's speed, skill, and quickness on the ball in the midfield, something we just didn't see much of in the SEC and certainly not in the poor non-conference schedule. That was on the coaching staff for not giving the team enough exposure to high level talent to be ready for this type of game. But you could see the adjustment was made in the 2nd half and we played much better and we overcame a couple of huge mistakes in the back (own goals in my mind) to get the tie and force PKs. We lost in PKs because we don't have a quick, athletic GK like Coach G has had for most of his years at A&M. And our PK shots were the worst I've ever seen in program history. It just looked like we didn't have the right personnel taking the PKs in the right order and they looked nervous instead of confident. The ND GK was also very quick and athletic and she was going to get at least 1 save over 5 shots.

Notre Dame was a better team than Baylor but wasn't prepared for the thuggish play of the Bears, which most teams are not. They almost ended the careers of a few Irish players during the match with brutal fouls that should have resulted in straight red cards, so this really rattled that ND players and they had to play a bit tentative when fighting for 50/50 balls in the middle of the field for fear of being injured. This is completely on the referee who should have sent a message early in the match that it wouldn't be tolerated. Baylor also scored an early goal to rattle their nerves further and should have been up 2-0 at the half after having a goal disallowed due to time running out. Baylor did play inspired and deserved to win the game as the stat line proved, but ND did respond and get the 2-2 draw to force OT. It also seemed the Bears fed off a rowdy Baylor crowd who carried them across the finish line. ND also didn't play well on defense and didn't prevent attacks on goal like they did against A&M. Maybe they were tired, who knows, but that wasn't the same team that played us.

Finally, I do think that most of us are now coming to the realization that we just weren't as good as we had thought prior to the tourney. The injuries really took a toll on the team and we didn't have the depth needed to be a complete team. A&M went on a great winning streak at the end of the year, mostly by winning games in the last 3 minutes of matches with clutch goals, but that did cover up some weaknesses and made us gloss over some red flags that would show up in the postseason. The wins were over average to good teams, but none over truly elite teams (except possibly Florida) that tested our midfield prowess. I'm not sure we ever played against an elite defense like South Carolina's all year. I think we all knew the back line was very shaky going into the postseason with a 3-man set that put unnecessary pressure on the defense at times due to turnovers and the midfield struggling to get back to help them. And the fact we went 4-2-1 against a poor non-conference slate should have set off more alarms that this team probably wasn't going to be elite like we had all hoped. It's very possible that even with a #1 seed, A&M might have been knocked out in the Sweet 16 round because of these issues. A&M really needs to focus on the back line and midfield play in the Spring and start developing better chemistry there to avoid all the mistakes that plagued this year's team. With some incoming defensive talent and a return to the 4-back set, I think next year's team could surprise some people because the expectations will be much lower. And let's hope the coaches prepare them better for the postseason with a much tougher non-conference slate.
Carnwellag2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HiddenAg2 said:

Remember, they almost always out-recruit A&M every year. I still put more stock into the RPI than the ridiculous polls because it's based on actual results against proven competition (either good or bad). Polls are only based on win/loss record and reputation, which is just silly. ND did play a much tougher schedule than A&M and thus were not intimidated and better prepared for a game against a top flight team in the tourney.

something we just didn't see much of in the SEC and certainly not in the poor non-conference schedule. That was on the coaching staff for not giving the team enough exposure to high level talent to be ready for this type of game.
.

And the fact we went 4-2-1 against a poor non-conference slate should have set off more alarms that this team probably wasn't going to be elite like we had all hoped.
What was the teams final ranking in both strength of schedule and non-conference strength of schedule???

Carnwellag2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder why you didn't want to respond after making obsurd claims? I looked it up for you on AWK
Their strength of schedule ranked 15 overall and their non-conference strength of schedule was 9.

That doesn't support your "claims"


Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.