r/Thorns • u/2cool4ew • 10d ago

Second half vs KC…

We just seem so tired ugh tough to watch rn. Missed obaze during this game and having a lot of questionable feelings about bogere. So good to see Liv back on the field!!!

13 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/Luci_Cascadia 10d ago edited 10d ago

Bogere played well. She is integrating well.

We have been missing Liv, and that showed through the middle of the game. She is responsible for assisting or scoring 45% of our goals this year. She is not someone that can be replaced off the bench. And she is our best when it comes to stealing balls and dueling in the midfield. She came on too late to have a real impact today.

9

u/jellybeanking123 10d ago

She had a massive error that led to the second goal unfortunately

4

u/Scaggsboz 10d ago

Yes but even then Temwa should never be left that wide open for any reason

3

u/Either_Ambassador_41 10d ago edited 10d ago

Calzada belatedly deciding to feign being the fourth defender on the ball rather than keeping an eye on the golden boot winner was just the cherry on top of an incompetent performance, for the CBs in particular. Perry let in the second goal the same way. Just horrible.

2

u/Awkward-Cartoonist68 10d ago

Calzada had a poor showing in her last start that resulted in 3-1. Obaze should start as much as possible over her and Perry. Was that really Perry on that 2nd goal? Wow. Reyes was nowhere in the picture she was so forward. 

3

u/Awkward-Cartoonist68 10d ago

Reyes was the biggest issue and I hold her most responsible for the 2nd and 3rd goals for leaving Temwa. With that said, I can’t say Bogere had a good game when her turnover led to the 2nd goal. It was a careless one too and simply can’t happen.

3

u/Either_Ambassador_41 10d ago

The biggest problem with Bogere on that play was not taking the yellow card in transition. That was obviously trouble.

2

u/Awkward-Cartoonist68 10d ago

Agreed. Also I thought Reyes should have as well on the 3rd goal. 

2

u/No-Accident5168 10d ago

Of course, but you can't expect players to cover for the rookies (that player had shifted to cover) and play their position too.  

They need more experienced players, let the young ones develop for later in season or next.   Too many rookies making too many rookie mistakes.   Not a jab, just an observation.  

6

u/Scaggsboz 10d ago

The non-rookies made plenty of mistakes too. This was just a tired team against a very difficult opponent

1

u/ClayKavalier North End 9d ago

"let the young ones develop"

How? They need playing time. We don't have a development team/league. Scrimmages in practices probably aren't enough. We've thrown some rookies in to start before and had it come together pretty quickly. How long were Coffey or Wilson on the bench before they started?

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 9d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ClayKavalier North End 9d ago

"Yes, they do need playing time, but maybe in a subbing situation"

The players aren't interchangeable parts. The decision to start them or not based on been a range of factors, including injury, form, their skills, the opponent, game state, strategy, tactics, etc. Villahamn specifically said that he put Calzada in on at least one occasion because of her speed. There's an obvious trade-off there with experience and other factors but it isn't simply a matter of always playing the player who has the most experience. Sometimes the player with the most experience isn't as good.

The college system has always been insufficient for developing talent, which is one reason why the draft is now gone. Another being free agency. I do agree that college has probably been water down because more players are going straight to pro, so the talent pool isn't as great in college. But how many players is that, really? Presumably, they are able to skip college and go pro directly because agents, scouts, GMs, and coaches recognize that they are sufficiently developed to go pro, that college would just be holding them back. This is one reason why Thorns are investing in their academy system. At some point, there will be a development league. But many, most, or all of our players got experience outside of college. They played for U## sides and otherwise invested more year-round in their development.

"Coaches have to guess about development."

That's really understating the amount of information they have and the number of other people involved.

"The USL system was supposed to be the training tier for the system." No it isn't. The USL takes themselves seriously as an independent league. It may de facto take on that role but they don't have an agreement with NWSL to be a feeder league or anything. Can you name any NWSL players on loan to USL sides? Can you name any NWSL players who started in USL and moved up to NWSL?

Other teams are also playing young, inexperienced, players who haven't had enough time together.

"Fwiw, I have family who either played professionally or coached."

An argument from authority by proxy isn't worth much. How many people have we had in our FO who fit that description that we don't automatically believe is right about any particular thing?

Are the problems with Mimi and Deyna that they are just out of college and don't have enough experience? Is Hiatt's speed a matter of age? The fact that Harvey and Loboa aren't being played much should give some indication that Villahamn has a sense of where players are at developmentally and understands the trade-offs.

But yeah, coming on as a sub is a way to gain experience and to develop but that happens under specific circumstances that impact what players to substitute and when, and what is expected of those players subbing on. Game state matters. Strategy and tactics matter. They aren't interchangeable parts. Their differences aren't just a matter of overall skill or experience. Some players bring something specific that can be an advantage in certain situations, like height or speed, that have nothing to do with their age or experience. Age and experience can influence how they apply their physical gifts or their learned skills, and athleticism can't always compensate for a lack of attention, creativity, discipline, focus, etc., which is why there's a trade-off to putting on Calzada because she's fast.

We need to have some perspective and consider the context here too. Villahamn didn't get a pre-season with the club. There's only so much he could have learned before from game tape and watching previous matches, especially about the new young players. We have some key injuries still with Hanks, Weaver, Dufour and lately Moultrie that impacted the roster options. We've had schedule congestion that forces rotations, influences sub rosters, and risks player exhaustion and injury if they aren't rested.

I've mentioned Calzada. I don't know without reading back whether you've named a specific player you're concerned about. Perry is young as well. She passes well but is inexperienced. Both need time to build chemistry with teammates. I've been really underwhelmed with Bogere so far but have no idea offhand how old they are, how long they've been a pro, how their former league compares to NWSL or college-level ball, etc. But what is the alternative to her right now? How did Hanks fit into your framing last season? How about Tordin now? Reyes wasn't great last match. That's not because of age or inexperience.

I've acknowledged there are trade-offs with fielding younger and more inexperienced players. There's really no substitute for real, starting, minutes. Sometimes it can't really be helped because of circumstances. A player isn't going to get the same kind of experience and learn the same lessons if they only make substitute appearances, only play on the road, only play against the worst teams, etc. Hell, even playing in a more robust college system or comparatively lower-quality professional league isn't going to afford them the same development opportunities as playing against the best in higher stakes situations. Sometimes risks need to be taken and some trust shown. It is arguably not good for confidence and development to never start.

I'm not too worried yet. These are growing pains. VIllhamn is new. Some players are at least new to the team. Bogere is my primary concern right now but there isn't anyone to replace her with right now anyway so we just need to give her some time to adapt until she does or we can bring in an upgrade in a future transfer window. I guess we could try Harvey or Mackenzie there, or play Moultrie and Fleming as dual 8s with Mimi, Deyna (shudder), or Tordin at 10, but that has its own trade-offs. So if we're realistically talking about playing 1 young centerrback next to Hiatt or Obaze and Bogere, and that's the youthful inexperience were talking about, I don't really think we have a big long-term problem.

1

u/jellybeanking123 9d ago

Not the ACC - there are numerous rookies who played in the ACC for more than one season that are starting this year on SD, LA, HOU, and NY. Maybe the system as a whole is watered down - but not the ACC.