- NorCal Soccer.com
-- Forum: 99-00 / U11 Girls
--- Topic: Nor Cal State Cup Second Round ( 212 posts )

 [1] 2 3 > 

eastbaysoccer - October 21st, 2012 03:12 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 21st, 2012 03:13 GMT

I believe this will be the second round ranking.  1-16 are the 1st place finishers, 17-32 in second.  I have listed the points and GD for each team.   


1 Santa Rosa 30 21
2 Mustang Pride 30 13
3 MVLA                29 14
4 De Anza Blue 28 12
5 Rage                28 11
6 Sporting FC 28 10
7 San Juan 28 8
8 Palo Alto 28 8
9 AFA 24 4
10 Manteca 27 14
11 NB Elite 27 9
12 WSC Storm 27 3
13 Davis 25 4
14 Placer 25 4
15 Rays 23 16
16 EDYSL 22 6
17 GSC Gryphons 21 4
18 Crossfire 21 3
19 Woodland 20 7
20 MVU 19 7
21 49ers 19 5
22 Mustang Blaze 19 3
23 Rage Orange 19 2
24 Ajax 18 5
25 Juventus 18 2
26 Novato 18 -1
27 San Juan White 16 1
28 SCA 14 2
29 Diablo FC 13 4
30 UC Fusion 13 4
31 Stockton Pumas 13 -3
32 West Coast 13 -1
eastbaysoccer - October 21st, 2012 03:23 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 21st, 2012 03:28 GMT

If I did this right the brackets should look as follows:

1 Santa Rosa
32 West Coast
24 Ajax
16 EDYSL
 
2 Mustang Pride
31 Stockton Pumas
23 Rage Orange
15 Rays

urple'>tough draw for mustang and Rays
 
3 MVLA
30 UC Fusion
22 Mustang Blaze
14 Placer
 
 
4 De Anza Blue
29 Diablo FC
21 49ers
13 Davis

tough group here
 
 
5 Rage
28 SCA
20 MVU
12 WSC Storm
 
6 Sporting FC
27 San Juan White
19 Woodland
11 NB Elite
 
7 San Juan
26 Novato
18 Crossfire
10 Manteca

Looks like the Mustang/Tremor pairing of last yearSan Juan and Palo Alto have the exact prelim numbers.  Will be interesting how they determine this tie breaker.  The short end will be a date with Manteca.
 
8 Palo Alto
25 Juventus
17 GSC Gryphons
9 AFA
Norcal9 - October 22nd, 2012 02:59 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, October 21st, 2012 03:23  GMT ------
If I did this right the brackets should look as follows:

1 Santa Rosa
32 West Coast
24 Ajax
16 EDYSL
 
2 Mustang Pride
31 Stockton Pumas
23 Rage Orange
15 Rays

urple'>tough draw for mustang and Rays
 
3 MVLA
30 UC Fusion
22 Mustang Blaze
14 Placer
 
 
4 De Anza Blue
29 Diablo FC
21 49ers
13 Davis

tough group here
 
 
5 Rage
28 SCA
20 MVU
12 WSC Storm
 
6 Sporting FC
27 San Juan White
19 Woodland
11 NB Elite
 
7 San Juan
26 Novato
18 Crossfire
10 Manteca

Looks like the Mustang/Tremor pairing of last yearSan Juan and Palo Alto have the exact prelim numbers.  Will be interesting how they determine this tie breaker.  The short end will be a date with Manteca.
 
8 Palo Alto
25 Juventus
17 GSC Gryphons
9 AFA

------ QUOTE END ------



Looks good except AFA? How did you get them to number 9?
eastbaysoccer - October 22nd, 2012 03:43 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 22nd, 2012 03:49 GMT

@Norcal....my bad.  Looks more balanced now, except the Mustang vs. Rays match up stays firm.  Palo Alto vs. Manteca look interesting too.  I guess we will find out what the brackets will look like soon. 

1 Santa Rosa
32 West Coast
24 Ajax
16 EDYSL
 
2 Mustang Pride
31 Stockton Pumas
23 Rage Orange
15 Rays
 
3 MVLA
30 UC Fusion
22 Mustang Blaze
14 AFA
 
4 De Anza Blue
29 Diablo FC
21 49ers
13 Placer
 
5 Rage
28 SCA
20 MVU
12 Davis
 
6 Sporting FC
27 San Juan White
19 Woodland
11 WSC Storm
 
7 San Juan
26 Novato
18 Crossfire
10 NB Elite
 
8 Palo Alto
25 Juventus
17 GSC Gryphons
9 Manteca
mtnlady - October 22nd, 2012 04:10 GMT


Are the teams in bold who you believe will win the bracket? Thanks for spelling this out. Next question.. I'm unclear exactly when these games are played. I think January but can't really tell by looking at the Norcal site. That and I think things are changing a bit this year?
psyclone - October 22nd, 2012 06:52 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, October 22nd, 2012 03:43  GMT ------
3 MVLA
30 UC Fusion
22 Mustang Blaze
14 AFA

------ QUOTE END ------




MVLA beat AFA last weekend. It was at MVLA, but still, 4-0 is bordering on uncompetitive.

Perhaps AFA was missing someone?
eastbaysoccer - October 22nd, 2012 07:33 GMT




------ QUOTE from  psyclone, October 22nd, 2012 06:52  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, October 22nd, 2012 03:43  GMT ------
3 MVLA
30 UC Fusion
22 Mustang Blaze
14 AFA

------ QUOTE END ------




MVLA beat AFA last weekend. It was at MVLA, but still, 4-0 is bordering on uncompetitive.

Perhaps AFA was missing someone?
------ QUOTE END ------




AFA is up and down.  From what I have seen of them they are very big, fast, physical and play a lot of kick ball which has been successful for them.  They beat mustang, rage (in penalty kicks) and Palo alto but lost badly to sporting, RAYS and MVLA. 

If the kick ball is working that day they could beat someone but I don't expect it to work all the time. 
20sDad - October 22nd, 2012 14:28 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, October 22nd, 2012 04:10  GMT ------
Are the teams in bold who you believe will win the bracket? Thanks for spelling this out. Next question.. I'm unclear exactly when these games are played. I think January but can't really tell by looking at the Norcal site. That and I think things are changing a bit this year?
------ QUOTE END ------




I think last year one was scheduled at large between now and January and the other two were scheduled by NorCal at a neutral location in January.  My memory is a little fuzzy so that could be wrong. 
20sDad - October 22nd, 2012 14:33 GMT


Do they re-seed after this round or will 1 play 8, and so on?
mtnlady - October 22nd, 2012 15:49 GMT


My two cents worth is that Red would be better if they grouped the top 16 teams together in one bracket, teams 16-32 in another, 33 - 49 in the third etc. I believe that's what Norcal is doing for the whites and blues. Then promote/relegate up/down after round 2 to give you your final games. Huge difference between the top 16 and the rest of the teams. Get more 'like kind' teams playing each other round 2.
eastbaysoccer - October 22nd, 2012 16:27 GMT


I agree.  It's not good for anyone to play a non-competitive game. 

mtnlady - October 22nd, 2012 17:24 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on October 22nd, 2012 17:25 GMT



------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, October 22nd, 2012 16:27  GMT ------
I agree.  It's not good for anyone to play a non-competitive game. 
------ QUOTE END ------




Especially when I hear remarks from coaches who want to win the seeding games but are really hesitant about what they 'win' if they make the top group of red as it could mean a very long January. I heard one team purposely threw most of their games simply to avoid being in the top bracket of Red as they didn't want to end their season on a bad note in January. That isn't good if it's true. You want like kind teams playing each other as much as possible and you want everyone trying their best.
20sDad - October 22nd, 2012 18:22 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, October 22nd, 2012 17:24  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, October 22nd, 2012 16:27  GMT ------
I agree.  It's not good for anyone to play a non-competitive game. 
------ QUOTE END ------




Especially when I hear remarks from coaches who want to win the seeding games but are really hesitant about what they 'win' if they make the top group of red as it could mean a very long January. I heard one team purposely threw most of their games simply to avoid being in the top bracket of Red as they didn't want to end their season on a bad note in January. That isn't good if it's true. You want like kind teams playing each other as much as possible and you want everyone trying their best.
------ QUOTE END ------




On the other hand, you have always been a big proponent of equal opportunity for teams to compete.

I also think NorCal allows teams to request to play up or down a level if they are one of the borderline teams.  At the end of the day, I think it works out the same whether itís a second round of 16 or 32.  32 only to bracket winners advance out of 8 brackets.  16 the top 2 from each bracket advance.  It probably works out to be the same teams.
mtnlady - October 22nd, 2012 19:20 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on October 22nd, 2012 19:26 GMT

Agreed however the seeding games are the equal opportunity leveler. I'd split into 1-16, 17-32 etc. and then promote or relegate again after round 2 to get your QFs, Semis and championship. That way you get the best of both worlds. 'Like kind' teams playing each other as much as possible with the cream of (each) crop rising to the next level - or down a level as the case may be. 

The way red bracket is set up now the initial seeding and round #2 can lead to some big mismatches. Now the initial seeding may have to remain like this (true?) to make sure some sleeper team isn't left out of the mix (i.e. equal opportunity) however by round #2 you have a decent idea where teams are lining up. So basically first place teams go to bracket 'a'. Second place teams to bracket 'b'. Third place teams to bracket 'c' and fourth place teams to bracket 'd' for round 2. Then promote / relegate the top and bottom teams up and down based on round 2 results.

You end up with the same number of games but fewer mismatches while still giving the under-rated teams a shot at the top rung if they are good enough. While at the same time relegated down the 'not so good' teams (regardless of their club affiliation).
eastbaysoccer - October 22nd, 2012 20:30 GMT


Agreed round 1 gives everyone an equal opportunity to upset one of the top clubs. Round 2 should take all the first place finishers to the top 16.  Leaving a team like Diablo out ( who were upset) and came in 2nd is not earth shattering.  Then from the 16, take the bracket winners and the next four 2nd place finishers in point order.  That way we get more competitive games.  I guess we will have to wait and see what they do.


#9ismykindofkid - October 26th, 2012 05:29 GMT


Second round matchups:

Flight A
Burlingame SC RAYS 99G   
GSC Gryphons 99G Red   
SCA 00GN   
SRU Tremors   

Flight B
AFA Fusion   
CSCVS Crossfire Red   
Mustang Pride 99 G   
West Coast SC Wildfire   

Flight C 
Impact 99 G   
Mission Valley United MVU 99 GB   
Mountain View / Los Altos SC MVLA Monsoon Blue   
UC Premier Fusion   

Flight D 
49er United Sierra Blitz   
Diablo FC 99G 
Placer United Soccer Club 00G Red   
Santa Clara Sporting 99G Green   

Flight E 
Davis Legacy Soccer Club Millennium '00G   
Pleasanton Rage 99 Premier   
Stockton Storm Pumas   
WSC Arsenal 00 

Flight F
Force 99G Blue 
Mustang Blaze 99 G 
San Juan Soccer Club Spirits 00 White 
Walnut Creek Storm 99 

Flight G 
NBEFC `99G Blue- BARCELONA 
NYSA Novato United 99G 
Pleasanton Rage 99 Orange 
San Juan Soccer Club Spirits 00 Blue 

Flight H
Ajax United Elite 2000G 
Juventus Sport Club Blast 
MFC Newcastle 99 G 
Mountain View / Los Altos SC Blue Thunder 
eastbaysoccer - October 26th, 2012 06:33 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 26th, 2012 06:36 GMT

Thoughts about the second round:

1) SRU vs. Rays in round 2.  Thanks nor cal for that match up. Then add the gryphons who possess very well and we have a very competitive bracket. 

2) Mustang vs. AFA. AFA already beat them this year 3-1 in a very physical game.  Tough match up for The smaller mustang.

3) Mustang Blaze gets a great draw and could actually make top 8! 

4) MVLA Blue and RAGE get a good draw.

5) Manteca draw two good teams in the AJAX and Palo Alto.

6) San Juan meets NB Elite in what should be a close game.  Otherwise a goodmdraw for them.

Good luck to everyone!
20sDad - October 26th, 2012 15:11 GMT


Doesn't look right.

Burlingame and Gryphons should be seeded to closely to be in the same bracket.
lunita - October 26th, 2012 15:48 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, October 26th, 2012 15:11  GMT ------
Doesn't look right.

Burlingame and Gryphons should be seeded to closely to be in the same bracket.
------ QUOTE END ------




With snake pattern seeding, the first and last brackets will always have teams that placed right next to each other.  But didn't those two teams play in the first round too?  I thought they tried to avoid putting them in the same group again?
eastbaysoccer - October 26th, 2012 15:54 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 26th, 2012 15:55 GMT



------ QUOTE from  lunita, October 26th, 2012 15:48  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  20sDad, October 26th, 2012 15:11  GMT ------
Doesn't look right.

Burlingame and Gryphons should be seeded to closely to be in the same bracket.
------ QUOTE END ------




With snake pattern seeding, the first and last brackets will always have teams that placed right next to each other.  But didn't those two teams play in the first round too?  I thought they tried to avoid putting them in the same group again?
------ QUOTE END ------




Perhaps they should switch West Coast for the Gryphons.  SRU should play a lower seed then the Mustang.....I believe West Coast had the lowest points of the 32 teams.
eastbaysoccer - October 26th, 2012 16:05 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 26th, 2012 16:06 GMT

IMO the correct move is to move the RAYS into group F for San Juan White.  Group F is very weak currently.  SRU should not  have to play such a difficult game so early.  Someone in NorCal must not like you guys!
lunita - October 26th, 2012 17:53 GMT


I think the groups are arranged  A(1, 16, 17, 32),  B(2, 15, 18, 31), C(3, 14, 19, 30) etc. 

Teams 1-16 are the first place teams ranked by points and 17-32 are the second place teams (so 16 & 17 are rays and gryphons -- the lowest points of the first place teams and highest points of the second place teams.)  That would put  WSC or Stockton Storm Pumas should be in Group A, though? 
20sDad - October 26th, 2012 18:10 GMT




------ QUOTE from  lunita, October 26th, 2012 17:53  GMT ------
I think the groups are arranged  A(1, 16, 17, 32),  B(2, 15, 18, 31), C(3, 14, 19, 30) etc. 

Teams 1-16 are the first place teams ranked by points and 17-32 are the second place teams (so 16 & 17 are rays and gryphons -- the lowest points of the first place teams and highest points of the second place teams.)  That would put  WSC or Stockton Storm Pumas should be in Group A, though?   
------ QUOTE END ------




That would put Impact at 16 as they were to lowest point totaling 1st place team, no?
lunita - October 26th, 2012 18:26 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, October 26th, 2012 18:10  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  lunita, October 26th, 2012 17:53  GMT ------
I think the groups are arranged  A(1, 16, 17, 32),  B(2, 15, 18, 31), C(3, 14, 19, 30) etc. 

Teams 1-16 are the first place teams ranked by points and 17-32 are the second place teams (so 16 & 17 are rays and gryphons -- the lowest points of the first place teams and highest points of the second place teams.)  That would put  WSC or Stockton Storm Pumas should be in Group A, though?   
------ QUOTE END ------




That would put Impact at 16 as they were to lowest point totaling 1st place team, no?
------ QUOTE END ------




Yes, I think you're right.  22 points, no?
20sDad - October 26th, 2012 18:43 GMT


According to the website Burlingame has 23 and Impact 22.
eastbaysoccer - October 26th, 2012 19:16 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on October 26th, 2012 19:17 GMT

Think the committe has some wiggle room to move teams around as they see fit.  Perhaps that is what happened.

The RAYS are a tough match up for anyone especially if they are moving the ball well like they did at the Mustang Stampede..

AFA could be dangerous too if the refs allow their physical ( cheating we call it) play.

20sDad - October 26th, 2012 23:38 GMT


Wiggle room shouldn't apply to arbitrarily disregarding the seeding results.

If anything, it would be applied to reverse a situation in which two known top 8 teams are bracketed together.
11RoCks - October 28th, 2012 00:47 GMT


Rays and Gryphons did play in round 1, so they should be separated and not play in round 2..
eastbaysoccer - October 30th, 2012 17:22 GMT




------ QUOTE from  11RoCks, October 28th, 2012 00:47  GMT ------
Rays and Gryphons did play in round 1, so they should be separated and not play in round 2..
------ QUOTE END ------




Gryphons are a good team with some ODP/PDP members.  When playing to win they could be quite dangerous.  That group is loaded with talent. 

I guess the question is do the Gryphons and Rays want to be in the same group together?  It's a short commute for them!
Norcal9 - November 27th, 2012 02:07 GMT


Here's my humble picks:

Flight
A  Santa Rosa
B Pride (unless they are still plagued by the injuries that cost them the Mayor's Cup   )
C  MVLA (Monsoon)
D Sporting
E Davis (Davis playing well.  Don't know what's going on with Rage?   )
F Too close to call but.....I guess Storm
G San Juan
H Newcastle 

33-64
Flight
I Diablo
J Rockers
K Palo Alto (formerly know as Alpine)
L Elk Grove
M BOCA
N CCSA Black
O Fusion
P North Stars 

Good Luck to everyone...
mtnlady - November 27th, 2012 15:53 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on November 27th, 2012 15:59 GMT

Tougher flights? Easier fllights? 

A looks very tough with SRU, Burlingame Rays and Grypons.

D looks challenging as well with Santa Clara Sporting Green, Diablo FC and Placer United red all in the same group.

Other challenging groups in the top flight?

Easier brackets I would potentially put F and E as two of these - some upsets could happen. Stockton is struggling though (zero wins in the CCSL metro gold bracket)
eastbaysoccer - November 27th, 2012 19:09 GMT


Yes, C, E and F are the easiet groups for sure.  C should be a cake walk for MVLA.  Top seeds in each group should win but on any given day you never know.

Major upset alerts in Group A and B.  Rays pushed SRU to the brink in Stampede (tied 1-1 in regulation) and Gryphons are no slouch for a 3rd team (just tied RAYS, 1-1).  AFA beat Mustang ealier in the year 3-1 and with their prior injuries, who knows what will happen.  It would certainly be a huge upset if SRU or Mustang fail to make it to the top 8. 

Group F is not that great.  De Anza is in last place in premier and the others aren't exactly burning it up in their respective leagues.  The thought that one of these teams making it to top 8 in the absence of let's say RAYS, MVLA Thunder or NB Elite is unfortunate. 

Group H, minor upset alert here.
MVLA Thunder is very defense oriented like Diablo and may actually tie Manteca and give them a scare.  Problem is they can't score so even if this occurs they won't have enough GD to advance. 

Norcal9 - November 28th, 2012 04:45 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, November 27th, 2012 19:09  GMT ------
Yes, C, E and F are the easiet groups for sure.  C should be a cake walk for MVLA.  Top seeds in each group should win but on any given day you never know.

Major upset alerts in Group A and B.  Rays pushed SRU to the brink in Stampede (tied 1-1 in regulation) and Gryphons are no slouch for a 3rd team (just tied RAYS, 1-1).  AFA beat Mustang ealier in the year 3-1 and with their prior injuries, who knows what will happen.  It would certainly be a huge upset if SRU or Mustang fail to make it to the top 8. 

Group F is not that great.  De Anza is in last place in premier and the others aren't exactly burning it up in their respective leagues.  The thought that one of these teams making it to top 8 in the absence of let's say RAYS, MVLA Thunder or NB Elite is unfortunate. 

Group H, minor upset alert here.
MVLA Thunder is very defense oriented like Diablo and may actually tie Manteca and give them a scare.  Problem is they can't score so even if this occurs they won't have enough GD to advance. 


------ QUOTE END ------




So what is so easy about bracket E? Davis or Rage? Is everything ok in Rage land? Injuries? Didn't perform that well in Placer?
mtnlady - November 28th, 2012 14:47 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on November 28th, 2012 14:49 GMT



------ QUOTE from  Norcal9, November 28th, 2012 04:45  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, November 27th, 2012 19:09  GMT ------
Yes, C, E and F are the easiet groups for sure.  C should be a cake walk for MVLA.  Top seeds in each group should win but on any given day you never know.

Major upset alerts in Group A and B.  Rays pushed SRU to the brink in Stampede (tied 1-1 in regulation) and Gryphons are no slouch for a 3rd team (just tied RAYS, 1-1).  AFA beat Mustang ealier in the year 3-1 and with their prior injuries, who knows what will happen.  It would certainly be a huge upset if SRU or Mustang fail to make it to the top 8. 

Group F is not that great.  De Anza is in last place in premier and the others aren't exactly burning it up in their respective leagues.  The thought that one of these teams making it to top 8 in the absence of let's say RAYS, MVLA Thunder or NB Elite is unfortunate. 

Group H, minor upset alert here.
MVLA Thunder is very defense oriented like Diablo and may actually tie Manteca and give them a scare.  Problem is they can't score so even if this occurs they won't have enough GD to advance. 


------ QUOTE END ------




So what is so easy about bracket E? Davis or Rage? Is everything ok in Rage land? Injuries? Didn't perform that well in Placer? 
------ QUOTE END ------




E only has two premier level teams: Davis and Rage. Woodland is a solid Gold team and Stockton is struggling mightly right now (zero wins in Gold league play). Brackets that have three premier level teams and one very solid fourth team (strong Gold) I would put into the 'difficult' bracket category. If E had the likes of a Diablo FC or a Placer United red team plus Woodland and Davis and Rage then I would have placed that into the 'difficult' bracket category.
eastbaysoccer - November 28th, 2012 18:34 GMT


Let me re-phrase.  Nothing will be easy.  12/13 year old girls can be very unpredictable.  This is especially true when they are hampered by injuries, sick or playing in bad weather. 

Match ups will also be important.  Some teams just match up better against others and vice versa.
mtnlady - November 28th, 2012 21:07 GMT


Agreed but clearly there are stronger brackets than others. Anytime you get 3 strong to elite premier teams all in the same bracket it's going to be tough.
20sDad - November 28th, 2012 21:45 GMT


The rules set forth by NCP regarding seeding were clearly not followed this season with no explanation other than they are just a guideline and not set in stone. 
eastbaysoccer - November 28th, 2012 23:11 GMT


Flight F 
Force 99G Blue   
Mustang Blaze 99 G   
San Juan Soccer Club Spirits 00 White 
Walnut Creek Storm 99 

Probably the most competitive group.  Any one of these teams could advance. 



eastbaysoccer - November 28th, 2012 23:13 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, November 28th, 2012 21:45  GMT ------
The rules set forth by NCP regarding seeding were clearly not followed this season with no explanation other than they are just a guideline and not set in stone.   
------ QUOTE END ------




They aren't making it easy for you guys are they.  
mtnlady - November 29th, 2012 15:33 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, November 28th, 2012 23:11  GMT ------
Flight F 
Force 99G Blue   
Mustang Blaze 99 G   
San Juan Soccer Club Spirits 00 White 
Walnut Creek Storm 99 

Probably the most competitive group.  Any one of these teams could advance. 

No way, Blaze and Storm are good but hardly great teams. SJ White is the 'b' team and a mid ranked Gold team - strong but not premier. Several other brackets are much stronger than this bracket.




------ QUOTE END ------


Toneib - November 29th, 2012 15:54 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, November 29th, 2012 15:33  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, November 28th, 2012 23:11  GMT ------
Flight F 
Force 99G Blue   
Mustang Blaze 99 G   
San Juan Soccer Club Spirits 00 White 
Walnut Creek Storm 99 

Probably the most competitive group.  Any one of these teams could advance.

No way, Blaze and Storm are good but hardly great teams. SJ White is the 'b' team and a mid ranked Gold team - strong but not premier. Several other brackets are much stronger than this bracket.




------ QUOTE END ------



------ QUOTE END ------




I think you completely missed the point s/he was trying to make. The bracket is competitive in the sense that since there is no true "great" team in that bracket the team that steps up to play will advance to the round of 8.

I'd give the nod to Blaze or Storm, but haven't seen Force or SJ White play this year.
eastbaysoccer - November 29th, 2012 18:05 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, November 29th, 2012 15:33  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, November 28th, 2012 23:11  GMT ------
 

No way, Blaze and Storm are good but hardly great teams. SJ White is the 'b' team and a mid ranked Gold team - strong but not premier. Several other brackets are much stronger than this bracket.




------ QUOTE END ------



------ QUOTE END ------




I meant competitive within their own group......so I agree with you.
mtnlady - November 29th, 2012 18:21 GMT


Yes I agree, any mid ranked Gold team would love to be in this bracket as it's clearly one of the weaker brackets.
eastbaysoccer - November 29th, 2012 19:17 GMT


Predictions for this weekend?

Crossfire vs. AFA. ----------AFA 
Impact vs. UC---------------Impact
Diablo vs. Sporting----------Tie
Rage vs. Stockton-----------Rage
Davis vs. WSC---------------Davis
Walnut Creek vs. Force------Force
NB Elite vs. San Juan--------San Juan....tough game for San Juan in bad weather.

Toneib - November 30th, 2012 22:51 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, November 29th, 2012 19:17  GMT ------
Predictions for this weekend?

Crossfire vs. AFA. ----------AFA 
Impact vs. UC---------------Impact
Diablo vs. Sporting----------Tie
Rage vs. Stockton-----------Rage
Davis vs. WSC---------------Davis
Walnut Creek vs. Force------Force
NB Elite vs. San Juan--------San Juan....tough game for San Juan in bad weather.


------ QUOTE END ------




Rain outs for those not on turf....
mtnlady - December 01st, 2012 00:32 GMT


Snorkel and fins..
eastbaysoccer - December 08th, 2012 23:39 GMT
Edited by eastbaysoccer on December 08th, 2012 23:41 GMT

Some unexpected scores:

Rage and Stockton tie 0-0
Diablo and Sporting tie 0-0
Mustang Pride win only 1-0. 
Rays tie GSC Gryphons

eastbaysoccer - December 09th, 2012 01:29 GMT


The lower seeds are coming to play,

NB Elite 1-0 over A RAGE 2nd team. 
Toneib - December 09th, 2012 16:12 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, December 08th, 2012 23:39  GMT ------
Some unexpected scores:

Rage and Stockton tie 0-0
Diablo and Sporting tie 0-0
Mustang Pride win only 1-0. 
Rays tie GSC Gryphons

------ QUOTE END ------






------ QUOTE START ------
The lower seeds are coming to play, 

NB Elite 1-0 over A RAGE 2nd team. 
------ QUOTE END ------




My guess is that most, if not all, of those games were only close on paper.
20sDad - December 10th, 2012 22:29 GMT


The problem is that ďclose on paperĒ will undoubtedly come back to haunt some teams. 

Iím really not a fan of this yearís state cup format.  For obvious reasons, not following the seeding order is annoying.  But, beyond that, Iím not a fan of the whole snake pattern seeding or the fact that itís set up for only one team to advance from each bracket.  If this were in place last year, one of the two finalists would have never even made it past state seeding.
drock1331 - December 12th, 2012 21:11 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, December 10th, 2012 22:29  GMT ------
The problem is that ďclose on paperĒ will undoubtedly come back to haunt some teams. 

Iím really not a fan of this yearís state cup format.  For obvious reasons, not following the seeding order is annoying.  But, beyond that, Iím not a fan of the whole snake pattern seeding or the fact that itís set up for only one team to advance from each bracket.  If this were in place last year, one of the two finalists would have never even made it past state seeding.

------ QUOTE END ------




Maybe for "State" ranking, they could do a Round of 16 to include all runners up; and since State Quarterfinals aren't elimination rounds for highest seeds, they could do the same thing if the bracket expends to 16.
20sDad - December 13th, 2012 20:32 GMT


I think 4 flights of 4 with the top 2 from each flight advancing, or even last yearís format of 6 flights with two wildcards would be fine.

There is really no reason for 32 teams to be competing to get into the top 8.
NorcalSoccerFan - December 13th, 2012 22:11 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, December 13th, 2012 20:32  GMT ------
I think 4 flights of 4 with the top 2 from each flight advancing, or even last yearís format of 6 flights with two wildcards would be fine.

There is really no reason for 32 teams to be competing to get into the top 8.

------ QUOTE END ------




The problem with this is that you reward teams that (1) begin the season with higher rankings and therefore draw an easier first round, and (2) that are playing well early on--during the first round . . . and not the teams that develop and play well later in the season, during the second round.  There are any number of teams in the 17-32 range after the first round that might make it into the top 8 or top 16 after the second round.  I don't know what the happy medium is, but I don't think the solution is to narrow the field to the early season leaders and exclude the teams that develop and improve from making into the top 8.
20sDad - December 13th, 2012 22:27 GMT


Is there really a team out there that has made that sort of a jump since the beginning of the season?
NorcalSoccerFan - December 13th, 2012 22:56 GMT


With so many of the second round still yet to be played, it is hard to tell.  However, in the U11 group one of the Mustang teams (the third team, which started out ranked in the 40s) made it into the top 32 (as the 32 seed) with only one win in the first round, but has now won the first two games it has played in the second round.  They face SRU next so it is unlikely they will win all 3 and make top 8, but they at least have a chance to play for it, and they will most likely move into the top 16 with 2 wins.
mtnlady - December 13th, 2012 23:16 GMT


San Juan white u13g is a good example of team that is doing much better at the latter part of the season than at the beginning. I think they were ranked 56th to start, had a couple of rough tournaments but have come on strong since then. They are in a bracket that they could pontentially advance out of as well.

I agree cocnerning narrowing things down too quickly based on early season rankings. I also agree that what bracket you are in can make a big difference. Get an easier bracket and 2Ws is quite possible. Get a tough bracket and you could go 0-1Ws pretty easy. Not narrowing it down too quickly allows some flexibility.
20sDad - December 13th, 2012 23:30 GMT


It actually takes away flexibility by only allowing one team per flight to advance.
NorcalSoccerFan - December 14th, 2012 00:14 GMT
Edited by NorcalSoccerFan on December 14th, 2012 00:15 GMT

Then maybe narrow it down to 16 after the second round (top 2 in each flight), and play one extra game before quarterfinals.  The winners are top 8 and the losers are 9-16.  Then move into quarters and proceed like this year.
20sDad - December 14th, 2012 20:53 GMT


Iím just not convinced that there is a team outside of the top 16-24 capable of winning it all to justify extra games or a format with so little margin for error when it comes to advancing.
eastbaysoccer - December 14th, 2012 21:43 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, December 14th, 2012 20:53  GMT ------
Iím just not convinced that there is a team outside of the top 16-24 capable of winning it all to justify extra games or a format with so little margin for error when it comes to advancing.
------ QUOTE END ------




Absolutely not 20's.  The winner will be from the original top 10.  Unfortunately some really good teams will not make top 8 and the result will be some very non competitive  1st round final games. 

In the NCAA hoop tournament, seeding is based on a body of work rather than what you do a three games in a prelim round. 

The way this may shake out is the best teams could be playing in 9-16 group!!!!!!
soccerrulesmyworld - January 17th, 2013 17:38 GMT


Here are my picks for the final 8:
Flight A-SRU-Rays will play SRU tough.
Flight B-Mustang Pride (They just beat AFA which probably was there only competition)
Flight C-It's a toss up between Impact and Blue Monsoon. Impact has had some good games but so has MVLA. I will go with MVLA
Flight D-I like Placer but they squeeked by the 49'rs. I will stick with Placer.
Flight E-Davis should win this flight.
Flight F-Force has 2 games down already. They should win this flight.
Flight G-San Juan Blue
Flight H-Manteca should win this but don't be surprised if Blue Thunder makes it interesting.
mtnlady - January 17th, 2013 18:27 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on January 17th, 2013 18:32 GMT

Flight D - I've never seen Diablo FC or Sporting Green play but aren't they supposed to be pretty good? 49er v Placer should have ended a 0-0 tie however a fluke play on a Placer corner kick resulted in a goal. Defender who was perfectly position to block the ball ducked instead. 3rd string keeper (due to injuries) was stunned that she ducked and watched the ball sail in. It was one of those 'comedy of errors' things that you can only shake your head at simply say 'must be one of those days'...

Saying that Placer controlled possession (huge field that played to their favor) but they struggled greatly in the final third and resorted to a boat load of crosses and a few long range shots that were pretty easy to defend against (assuming no one ducked... ). That's my long winded way of saying I have to believe that Sporting or Diablo are better than PU and will win this group?
eastbaysoccer - January 17th, 2013 19:53 GMT


A- SRU.....can anyone stop them? 
B - Musatng........have not had the results they would like this year but they are a good team.  AFA appears to be losing as of late.

C- MVLA........I don't think impact will make an impact.  The MVLA coach will play to win and the game between the two won't even be close.

D- PLACER.......Diablo can shut anyone out (as they did SRU and Manteca earlier in the year), but they can't score.  Sporting is good but w/o guest players I'm not sure about them.

E- Davis.....Rage tied with Stockton and now faces and uphill battle. 


F De Anza......in the bag

G. San Juan........they will beat the RAGE second team but it won't be that easy as they think.

F. Manteca barely........Manteca hasn't been on their game for awhile for whatever reason.  Lucky for them Palo Alto can't score so they should skate in on points.
wdrkb - January 18th, 2013 05:49 GMT
Edited by wdrkb on January 18th, 2013 05:50 GMT



------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, January 17th, 2013 19:53  GMT ------
A- SRU.....can anyone stop them? 
B - Musatng........have not had the results they would like this year but they are a good team.  AFA appears to be losing as of late.

C- MVLA........I don't think impact will make an impact.  The MVLA coach will play to win and the game between the two won't even be close.

D- PLACER.......Diablo can shut anyone out (as they did SRU and Manteca earlier in the year), but they can't score.  Sporting is good but w/o guest players I'm not sure about them.

E- Davis.....Rage tied with Stockton and now faces and uphill battle. 


F De Anza......in the bag

G. San Juan........they will beat the RAGE second team but it won't be that easy as they think.

F. Manteca barely........Manteca hasn't been on their game for awhile for whatever reason.  Lucky for them Palo Alto can't score so they should skate in on points.
------ QUOTE END ------




All we need to do is get healthy.  And we get closer and closer to that every day.  Got Placer this Sunday as our final tune up.  Good luck to all.
20sDad - January 19th, 2013 17:43 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 17th, 2013 18:27  GMT ------
Flight D - I've never seen Diablo FC or Sporting Green play but aren't they supposed to be pretty good? 49er v Placer should have ended a 0-0 tie however a fluke play on a Placer corner kick resulted in a goal. Defender who was perfectly position to block the ball ducked instead. 3rd string keeper (due to injuries) was stunned that she ducked and watched the ball sail in. It was one of those 'comedy of errors' things that you can only shake your head at simply say 'must be one of those days'...

Saying that Placer controlled possession (huge field that played to their favor) but they struggled greatly in the final third and resorted to a boat load of crosses and a few long range shots that were pretty easy to defend against (assuming no one ducked... ). That's my long winded way of saying I have to believe that Sporting or Diablo are better than PU and will win this group?
------ QUOTE END ------




EB pretty much summed it up for that bracket. 

DFC plays to tie like no team I've ever seen and it's hard to say what to expect from Santa Clara. 
soccerrulesmyworld - January 22nd, 2013 16:20 GMT


Manteca lost twice to Placer 2-1 in consecutive weeks. When is the last time that happened? What's going on over there? What happened to the almight RED ARMY? It just seems like yesterday when all they had to do was walk on the field and they were already up 2-0 before kick off. Any updates from our reporter WDRKB
Toneib - January 23rd, 2013 05:11 GMT


Are any teams worried about the small fields at Woodland? I've said it many times (mainly in my head) that these turf fields are way too small for the level these girls play! 

The younger/lower teams get to play on full size fields at Fallon and Alden Oliver. IMO NorCal is blowing it with the field assignments!
8isGreat - January 23rd, 2013 05:37 GMT




------ QUOTE from  Toneib, January 23rd, 2013 05:11  GMT ------
Are any teams worried about the small fields at Woodland? I've said it many times (mainly in my head) that these turf fields are way too small for the level these girls play! 

The younger/lower teams get to play on full size fields at Fallon and Alden Oliver. IMO NorCal is blowing it with the field assignments! 
------ QUOTE END ------




I couldn't agree more, Toni...I was stupefied when I saw we were going to be playing at woodland...AGAIN! Wonder how this affects outcome of games...could play into the hands of some teams better than others...maybe unfairly "level" the field a bit?
mtnlady - January 23rd, 2013 15:25 GMT


It will help teams with good possession, first touch, dribbling ability etc. Keepers with a long punt become a weapon. It will hamper teams that rely on long ball and speed to create scoring chances. Downside is that large teams that like to pound people it will be harder for the little teams to maneuver away from the demolition derby.
Toneib - January 23rd, 2013 16:48 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 23rd, 2013 15:25  GMT ------
It will help teams with good possession, first touch, dribbling ability etc. Keepers with a long punt become a weapon. It will hamper teams that rely on long ball and speed to create scoring chances. Downside is that large teams that like to pound people it will be harder for the little teams to maneuver away from the demolition derby.
------ QUOTE END ------




IMO, it completely hinders teams that use the full scope of the pitch for their style of play. And it is those teams who historically have good possession, 1st touch, etc. that will suffer from lack of space. So I have to disagree with your statement.

The only teams it helps are those who play boot ball. And yes, those teams still exist at U13.
drock1331 - January 23rd, 2013 17:00 GMT


I'll agree with most of this, although I'd probably change "boot ball" to "bunch ball." The more physical team will win out there.

If by boot ball you mean just sending long balls up the pitch, a decent goalie should gobble those up pretty easily.



------ QUOTE from  Toneib, January 23rd, 2013 16:48  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 23rd, 2013 15:25  GMT ------
It will help teams with good possession, first touch, dribbling ability etc. Keepers with a long punt become a weapon. It will hamper teams that rely on long ball and speed to create scoring chances. Downside is that large teams that like to pound people it will be harder for the little teams to maneuver away from the demolition derby.
------ QUOTE END ------




IMO, it completely hinders teams that use the full scope of the pitch for their style of play. And it is those teams who historically have good possession, 1st touch, etc. that will suffer from lack of space. So I have to disagree with your statement.

The only teams it helps are those who play boot ball. And yes, those teams still exist at U13.
------ QUOTE END ------


mtnlady - January 23rd, 2013 18:43 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on January 23rd, 2013 18:44 GMT

Not if your field is quite large it leaves quite a bit of space between your back line and your keeper. If the opposing team has very fast forwards your risk easy goals if your keeper gets too adventurious coming far out of their box to try and outrace speedy forwards to the ball.
drock1331 - January 23rd, 2013 18:51 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 23rd, 2013 18:43  GMT ------
Not if your field is quite large it leaves quite a bit of space between your back line and your keeper. If the opposing team has very fast forwards your risk easy goals if your keeper gets too adventurious coming far out of their box to try and outrace speedy forwards to the ball.
------ QUOTE END ------




But that's the thing, is the Woodland field large?
Toneib - January 23rd, 2013 21:07 GMT




------ QUOTE from  drock1331, January 23rd, 2013 18:51  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 23rd, 2013 18:43  GMT ------
Not if your field is quite large it leaves quite a bit of space between your back line and your keeper. If the opposing team has very fast forwards your risk easy goals if your keeper gets too adventurious coming far out of their box to try and outrace speedy forwards to the ball.
------ QUOTE END ------




But that's the thing, is the Woodland field large? 
------ QUOTE END ------




NO, the fields in Woodland are pathetically small!
mtnlady - January 23rd, 2013 22:23 GMT


Thus my statement - that the smaller fields disfavor teams that like to 'send it long' and out run the other teams to the ball. The smaller fields favor teams that play more for possession, have quality first touches and dribbling ability. 

The downside is that bigger more physical players can also control a smaller field more as the smaller players have less real estate to manuver away from the bigger players.

Bottom line - small fields can help and hurt a smaller more skilled team that plays a possession style of game. 

Small fields diffenetly hurt teams that play long ball and try to out run players to the ball. But that's not the style of play we want to be promoting at the youngers is it?
20sDad - January 23rd, 2013 23:44 GMT


The shorter fields are advantageous to teams that arenít creative offensively as it allows them to pack the defense and take shots from distance that would have no chance on a larger field. 
mtnlady - January 24th, 2013 00:39 GMT


That's a good point 20s. I would think the smaller field would be very helpful for the teams with very good off ball movement (creative) as the uncreative teams wouldn't be able to do much with the space they were given?
20sDad - January 24th, 2013 01:01 GMT


I don't think it hurts those teams as much as neutralizes that advantage in the fashion I mentioned above.  On a larger field, teams that pack the defensive 3rd have to sacrifice their attack in doing so.  Not so much on these fields.
drock1331 - January 24th, 2013 02:52 GMT


So do the three Woodland fields at least meet the minimum standards? We scrimmaged WSC Arsenal there a couple months ago on one of the main fields (ie, not a baseball field)
Toneib - January 24th, 2013 06:00 GMT
Edited by Toneib on January 24th, 2013 17:07 GMT



------ QUOTE from  20sDad, January 23rd, 2013 23:44  GMT ------
The shorter fields are advantageous to teams that arenít creative offensively as it allows them to pack the defense and take shots from distance that would have no chance on a larger field. 
------ QUOTE END ------





------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 24th, 2013 00:39  GMT ------
That's a good point 20s. I would think the smaller field would be very helpful for the teams with very good off ball movement (creative) as the uncreative teams wouldn't be able to do much with the space they were given?
------ QUOTE END ------




I might be mistaken, but isn't 20sDad making a completely different point than mtnlady?!  20sDad: shorter fields better for non-creative and defensive minded teams. mtnlady: smaller fields better for technical teams to create space. Or am I just completely missing the point?!

Either way, the fields at Woodland are way too small to allow the top teams in NorCal play, and execute, the beautiful game!
lunita - January 24th, 2013 14:06 GMT


In the strictest sense, FIFA's laws of the game say that the field needs to be 100-130 yards long and 50-100 yards wide (and the length has to be greater than the width... no square 100x100 yard fields.  LOL.) There's a huge range in "acceptable", and I think that is just part of the game.  On the other hand, chosing "neutral" fields should take this into account. Having a large part of the games on a field with unusual dimensions is the kind of thing that can give teams real home-team advantages and really skew the results of the whole cup one way or another. 

mtnlady - January 24th, 2013 19:54 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on January 24th, 2013 20:00 GMT

Woodland has a good team but I don't think they will be in the top 8 and thus "skew the results" with a home field advantage I don't think will come into play. 

You could make the same argument of the games were being held on a huge field as it would favor teams that like to hit a ton of long balls and out run everyone too it. Big fields tend to 'reward' athletiscm over skills. 

If anything you would want to go to the smaller field as it puts skills at a premium (which is what we are supposed to be promoting here correct??). On that note the new Norcal playing format rules which will come into play in a year or so are also recommending smaller fields of 90x50 to 100x60 for the U13 - U14 age group. I believe the Woodland fields meet these dimensions?

411 from 408 - January 24th, 2013 20:18 GMT


Would you rather play Barcelona on a bigger or smaller field?  Teams that dominate possession enjoy playing on a bigger field. Allows them to spread their opponent out. 
mtnlady - January 24th, 2013 21:26 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on January 24th, 2013 21:32 GMT

It's challenging to retain possession on a smaller field due to the limited time/space the field provides. So I would have to disagree, a smaller field would favor a team like Barca for two important reasons. First is that their team has the skill and off ball movement talent to successfully move away from pressure and retain possesion on such a field.

Second Barca plays suffacating defense - another key component to the game that needs to be taught. It would be a rare team that could handle a small field against a defense like Barca's.

So Barca is favored on a small field for two key reasons. Their ability to retain possession under very tight time/space limitations and second their ability to apply those same limitations onto others - their defense is outstanding.

Come on guys, you know dog gone well that big fields favor teams that like to play long ball and out run their opponents. You are fighting for the very thing that we try to NOT play at this level - no matter how you like to try and dress it up. Big fields encourage boot ball. There is a reason Norcal is moving toward a smaller field format.
Toneib - January 24th, 2013 22:12 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 24th, 2013 21:26  GMT ------
Come on guys, you know dog gone well that big fields favor teams that like to play long ball and out run their opponents. You are fighting for the very thing that we try to NOT play at this level - no matter how you like to try and dress it up. Big fields encourage boot ball. There is a reason Norcal is moving toward a smaller field format.
------ QUOTE END ------




This might be true for the lower level teams of this age group, but I believe most of the top 10 teams at U13 play a possession-style game.
20sDad - January 24th, 2013 22:40 GMT


How to teams play Bara defensively?  They pack the defensive 3rd and concede possession for the rest of the field (Mourinho did it pretty effectively with Inter a couple years ago).  In other words, they reduce the space they are defending.  Like I said earlier, smaller field dimensions might not necessarily hurt possession orientated teams, but it negates some of their advantage by reducing the space to defend while simultaneously allowing the opponent to sacrifice less offense than they would on a larger field by way of long distance shots.  The fact that one team was literally taking shots from kickoff last year is all you need to know about that. 

A side note about the proposed reduced field dimensionsÖ countries that implement that training strategy usually do so with less players of the field.  They donít pack the same amount of players into a smaller space.  The idea is that less players will equal more touches per player.
20sDad - January 24th, 2013 22:43 GMT


Another point, "boom ball' is a coaching issue... not a field issue.
eastbaysoccer - January 25th, 2013 04:23 GMT


Small fields allow for big physical teams to  bunch up and pummel the smaller skilled players hence giving the larger more physical teams an advantage.  Hopefully the refs will not allow this. 

Smaller fields make a defensive team even harder to score on.

Games of interest on a small field:

Palo Alto vs. Manteca should be interesting.  A good possession team vs. a very good defensive team.  Palo Alto will pack it in, keep the game close and attempt to counter late. 

any other interesting games on a small field?

mtnlady - January 25th, 2013 17:26 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on January 25th, 2013 17:33 GMT



------ QUOTE from  20sDad, January 24th, 2013 22:43  GMT ------
Another point, "boom ball' is a coaching issue... not a field issue.
------ QUOTE END ------




Wrong, you can coach players all day long on possession but they figure out pretty quick that big field, we're faster than they other team and off the ball goes. Field size can directly affect playing style regardless of what coaches are stressing in practice sessions. The sad part is that most parents are too focused on winning and are concerned that the smaller field may take away some advantage their team has and give up a 'lucky shot'. When in fact the smaller field puts a premium on first touch, dribbling, off ball movement (less space to utilize so you need to be better at moving and finding that space), possession etc.

If your team struggles in these areas then yes you will have trouble against good defenses on the smaller field. If your team relys on long ball tactics and the big 'booming' pass across the field as your method of moving the ball away from pressure then yes your team will lose some of it's advantage on the smaller field.

As I said, there is a reason why Norcal is mandating the use of smaller fields for the u12-u14 age group in the near future.

eastbaysoccer - January 25th, 2013 17:31 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, January 24th, 2013 22:43  GMT ------
Another point, "boom ball' is a coaching issue... not a field issue.
------ QUOTE END ------




........and a parent issue. How many times how you seen a fullback boot  the ball down the field and hear the parents scream, " good job".
drock1331 - January 25th, 2013 18:07 GMT




------ QUOTE from  eastbaysoccer, January 25th, 2013 17:31  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  20sDad, January 24th, 2013 22:43  GMT ------
Another point, "boom ball' is a coaching issue... not a field issue.
------ QUOTE END ------




........and a parent issue. How many times how you seen a fullback boot  the ball down the field and hear the parents scream, " good job".
------ QUOTE END ------




or "niiiiiiice...."

gets on my nerves! It's not fourth down. If it's a goaline scramble, sure, but more often than not it is definitely not necessary.
20sDad - January 25th, 2013 19:37 GMT




------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 25th, 2013 17:26  GMT ------
Wrong, you can coach players all day long on possession but they figure out pretty quick that big field, we're faster than they other team and off the ball goes.
------ QUOTE END ------




If a coach can't prevent his/her team from playing that way, he or she is a poor coach.  Flat out, end of story.  Pushing the blame onto the players and parents is just bad form.

I think youíre also misunderstanding the point of NCPís field dimension proposal and the fact that part is the proposal is reducing the amount of players.  Itís about increased touches - not teaching tactics (i.e. possession soccer).  If you read the proposal, NCP isnít even emphasizing ďpassing interactionsĒ until they reach a full field. 
mtnlady - January 25th, 2013 19:55 GMT
Edited by mtnlady on January 25th, 2013 19:58 GMT



------ QUOTE from  20sDad, January 25th, 2013 19:37  GMT ------


------ QUOTE from  mtnlady, January 25th, 2013 17:26  GMT ------
Wrong, you can coach players all day long on possession but they figure out pretty quick that big field, we're faster than they other team and off the ball goes.
------ QUOTE END ------




If a coach can't prevent his/her team from playing that way, he or she is a poor coach.  Flat out, end of story.  Pushing the blame onto the players and parents is just bad form.

I think youíre also misunderstanding the point of NCPís field dimension proposal and the fact that part is the proposal is reducing the amount of players.  Itís about increased touches - not teaching tactics (i.e. possession soccer).  If you read the proposal, NCP isnít even emphasizing ďpassing interactionsĒ until they reach a full field. 

------ QUOTE END ------




Read the proposal again. It covers both younger teams (reduce playing numbers and field size) AND mid age teams (reduce field size). We'll just have to agree to disagree about the importance of field space on how players play. 

As for parents I think you guys worry too much about winning and thus your great concern as to the field size. Your afraid that it will put your team at some sort of competitive disadvantage. 

The affect the field size (and player numbers) on playing skills is well documented. And NO I am not going to look up the information for you. Much too busy. You can do that research yourself.
20sDad - January 25th, 2013 21:29 GMT


I have read the proposal and also had the opportunity to speak with people from NCP and your interpretation represents only a small part of their reasoning behind the proposal.  Itís focused primarily on reducing the amount of players to increase touches per player thus improving individual skills. 

Smaller field dimensions are primarily to accommodate the player reduction and the amounts of physical exertion younger players are capable of rather than a driving principle of the proposal.  Re-read it.

As for the rest, donít take yourself so seriously.  Itís a thread about state cup, of course weíre going to be discussing winning and factors affecting the competitive advantage.  I hate to break it to you but itís a simple game and most parents are capable to understanding it both tactically and from a bigger picture perspective.
eastbaysoccer - January 25th, 2013 22:39 GMT


....and getting back to the games. A couple of big games on Saturday to check out.

West Coast vs. AFA. :  possible three way tie for 1st if West wins and AFA beats Mustang.  A possible scenario given that West lost to Mustang by 1 goal earlier and AFA already beat Mustang this year.  Could a gold team sneak into the top 8?

Placer vs.  Diablo:  will be close and could decide the the bracket.  0-0 or 1-0 as a final.
drock1331 - January 26th, 2013 00:49 GMT


I looked at their record this fall season. Are WC a premier caliber team? They dominate a good looking Gold division but then get smacked around by Novato or Stockton Pumas.

I saw them play at the Juventus tournament, as they were a game before us, they looked ok.
mtnlady - January 26th, 2013 16:18 GMT


SRU Tremors
Mustang Pride (2 wins already)
MVLA
Group D? (I still have a hard time believe PU's team deserves top 8? Surely Diablo or Santa Clara will step up?)
Davis
Force (2 wins already)
San Juan Blue (Barcelona has a 2W, 1L record so SJ can't make a mistake but they already control the tie breaker)
Newcastle (unless they are really hurting)

Q: What brackets are the toughest brackets in that they have 2 or more strong teams? Which bracket has the most premier level teams in them? I see quite a few Gold teams still in the mix here?
Toneib - January 26th, 2013 18:19 GMT


Any word on the early games?
SRU Tremors  vs  GSC Gryphons 99G Red 
Burlingame SC RAYS 99G  vs  SCA 00GN 
20sDad - January 26th, 2013 18:54 GMT


Tremors 7-1
Burlingame 2-1
Toneib - January 26th, 2013 19:46 GMT




------ QUOTE from  20sDad, January 26th, 2013 18:54  GMT ------
Tremors 7-1
Burlingame 2-1
------ QUOTE END ------




Thanks! Looks like we might have to rely on parents for up-to-date scores since the NorCal page hasn't been updated with any completed matches.  
[ Go Back] [ Print page]
Powered by © ICT 2003
Driven by ICT - Infinite Core Technologies