Defense: can’t wait to see how defenders develop with Coach Wood vs Coach Phil. I’m looking for a bigger role from one pr both of the two big-time Sr. defenders (both = 1st team AA IMO.). BWW’s sixes experience fascinates me, as does a full year+ under her belt since the knee injury. Again, hoping the young ones get run when we get the leads we should see
Hoping the formerly young goalies have improved too. I was worried about keeper last year, but as long as there’s no step-back, the defense will do the keeper well sustaining pressure to lower angles on shots.
I liked the shift in defensive philosophy last year. As much as ai loved what Phil did over such a long run in developing defenders and keepers, his light-on-sliding defense was too extreme for me at times. And I am wondering who is developing goalies with Phil gone. But who isn’t excited by the defenders on this team!?
Offense: 8 five-star attackers
unreal…. And more on the way…
Just hope they get more kids real minutes in this mix. Heels haven’t historically played too many kids, just like their competitors. I get that… even for kids with big rep’s the jump is so big. This level (top 3-4 teams) is beyond crème de la crème, sorta like it was 35-40 yrs ago with men’s game. Who thrives on the intense comp, is “available,” and fights to get better when in CH will get the minutes.
My big offensive question is a favorite topic of mine and maybe Airball’s since you discuss lefties above. “Lord loves a lefty finisher,” I’m fond of saying, and “Like ice cream, there’s always room for a lefty!”. Men’s coaches for decades and Coach Levy have made this a priority, taking kids who otherwise were not so well rounded. And the Heels will miss last year’s lefty with a strong high cannon (VT transfer). So I can’t wait to see who fills that spot mostly (impossible without seeing them play of course). Reminds me a little of 2013, when the daughter of a men’s program alum showed up and had a big hand in 2 titles from the left side.
The tall player thing is interesting outside of the draw. I guess there’s a theory w/coaches that tall kids see the field better, like QB’s, and can free-up hands/protect their stick better in tight to the crease. Heck, men’s game attackers took the stick over sliding middies’ heads at times (seems it a couple times in wowen’s game but not often). So ai guess in theory it makes sense. Overall size def matters since defenders couldn’t muscle them off their dodging line or get in takeaway checks as easily. Note Northwestern seems to really like a body type…. But to me height itself is more of an afterthought to how well the player simply out-performs others in feeding and shooting at times, but especially feeding. Yes, it may help but all that matters is can they produce. Iow, I doubt cos he’s screen recruits per height. Little ones do it well too imo. I’d take data on little guys being great feeders more than tall or big guys from 40 yrs back in the men’s game all the way thru Cornell’s current Goldstein. Maybe height looks good and raises comfort on paper in recruiting, but they still had to produce first I’d take a crafty feeder who sees the field well from experience in soccer or pg in hoops over straight height advantage. But maybe you guys hear and see otherwise?
Sorry for length… my excitement and depth can’t approach Airball’s (whom I thank PROFUSELY for his research here for YEARS! Just incredible!), but I have never been so excited to watch the Heels’ women’s team, and that is saying something!
www.usalacrosse.com
