I don't know, but every time I've ever watched the Ags play, we're always kinda flat. We don't win balls, we breakdown on defense, and our attack needs a Zinedine Zidane to succeed. That is, pushing one or two forwards against five defenders (e.g. texas game) isn't going to create many chances. But all of these "problems" (I think) can be corrected at half time (maybe with the exception of modifying our attack). But they appear over and over, game after game. I've been watching the ags off and on since 95...and it's always the same.

Has anyone else noticed this...or do I just show up at the wrong games.

-jinxsy the clown

We're a young team. We have some of the best talent in the country. give us time!

But they've played like this every year that I've watched since 95.

I don't mean to be pessimistic. I just wonder if I'm the only one that notices coaching problems.

I missed the Nebraska game in the playoffs...but I hear we pretty much dominated them in everything but the score.

Problem this year is a lack of talent and too few upperclassmen. Having Woodard absent from the front line has created a HUGH hole that Smith or any of the freshmen forwards have no hope to fill. I too have been a fan from 1996 and this is by far the weakest team that TAMU has fielded. There are some great players, Strutz, Spisak - you won't find any better in the country, but after that it's just not there.
Problem has been two mediocre recruiting classes in a row.

I agree, the coaching is sometimes questionable (but then again, what coaching isn't -- we're all experts from our armchairs, right?) and the talent level is down this year. Whatever you may think of G and Phil Stephenson, you can't argue with results and they've certainly had the best team on campus over the last 5+ years. If you believe the experts, austin has dominated recruiting since Petrucelli has been there and so you would have to say that he's done a lot less with a lot more.

Although in interviews, G and the players have downplayed the loss of L. Woodard, she left a void that, like dallas2 said, hasn't been filled. Yes, Strutz is steady and often stellar and Spisak is stellar but often error-prone. Echevarry is a nice player off the bench and provides some offense but either isn't fit enough to give a solid effort the entire match or else simply does not care to hustle the entire time she's out there. E. Smith has the size (although her play in the air is subpar and often does not fully take advantage of her size) and speed to play with anyone in the country. Although she has greatly improved over the last few years, she's still no Lindsay Woodard in terms of skill. I thought we would see great things from her (and still may) but she reminds me of what we see a lot in football -- the high school QB or RB that dominates at that level with his superior physical gifts but is not a student of the game and never adjusts to the next level. Emma has scored some big goals but the vast majority of her scores come either in garbage time or because the other team is simply not fit enough to keep up with her frantic pace. When you play the top teams in the country (or even in the conference) that have defenders as fast as she is, her play really suffers. Don't get me wrong, there is something to be said for being as fit as she is and hustling 90 minutes. If the entire team gave the same effort she does for the entire match, they would not have lost 4 out of their last 5. Labhart is more solid than spectacular but is one of my favorite players because she leaves it all on the field - Burke is in the same boat and definitely does the most with her talent. The same can be said for many of the underclassmen who have played hard and well and done a more than adequate job and while its easy to cheer for players like this and while they are certainly valuable pieces in the puzzle, you need people who can put the ball in the back of the net. Back to the talent level though, Strutz, Spisak, and possibly Labhart and Burke might be our only players that would start for t.u.

I'll end this rant for now and say that many of our underclassmen have looked great out there and may develop into the UNC-caliber players we're going to need to be able to keep up with the UNCs and Cali. schools. I realize that L. Woodard is a one-in-a-million type player but hopefully Krambeer and this hotshot new recruit will turn into those type of players and compliment our solid midfield and defense.



[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 11/14/2003 4:58p).]

Thanks for the post Dunne. I made my initial post to get some feedback because:

1. I don't know everything about our team (far from it).
2. Wanted to see if anyone had bad feelings toward G.

I agree, our lack of talent may be our handicap, but I don't think we should ever be out-hustled...which often appears to be the case. If I were G and my girls showed up against tu as they did...I'd make sure it never happened again. He's the fire under their arses (or should be)...and when they're not moving, there's no fire.

But I will qualify all of this by admitting I am an armchair coach, backseat driver, etc.

As we all know, sports is 5% talent and 95% other factors, including coaching, hustle, leadership, but most of all is HEART. thats what wins big games. If our ladies play with their hearts, i have no doubt they can go past the elite 8. but thats my humble opinion

To be honest, I love this team, but they need to learn how to finish hard. They seem to give up too many late goals. Whether it's because of fitness, lack of strong bench players or other factors, I don't know. But how many of this year's losses are from giving up late goals?