Re: Portland Pilots vs. James Madison Gameday Thread

by SoreKnees on Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:08 pm

Wow. Jon Miller!

by Auto Pilot on Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:11 pm

Wow, that was a rare tidbit. I can't believe how long its been since I have seen a tobacco commercial. "Just a pinch between the cheek and gum" stick the can in the waist band of your shorts and play on.

by **PilotNut** on Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:49 pm

Chatbox. Click on "home" and then scroll down to the bottom left corner and click "join the chat" under the "CHATBOX" heading...

by **PilotNut** on Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:01 pm

2-1 Pilots at the half, after JMU took the early lead...

Tsao with a beautiful go-ahead goal!

GO PILOTS!

by Auto Pilot on Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:06 pm

How did they score on us so quick?

by Auto Pilot on Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:25 pm

I just listened to this thing and it was not really encouraging for me to see our defense give up two soft goals to an unranked team. At this time of the year we should be really rolling. Hope they get rejuvinated for Stanford or we could be talking about next year a lot sooner than we thought.

Stanford is a big counter attacking team behind the speed of O'Hara who has received much more acclaim than the JMU attackers. Our possession is only as good as we can defend and score with it.

by **PilotNut** on Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:35 pm

Agreed on the soft goals.

At this point, I will just take the W... we came out a little off kilter tonight, but still managed to hold off the Dukes. Lets focus on taking it to the Cardinal.

by ninjapizza on Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:36 pm

Just saw the final score line.

What. Was. THAT?

by PurplePrideTrumpet on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:18 pm

That was a team that was good on the counterattack, and took advantage of a couple of defensive mistakes. On the other hand, the second goal for the Pilots was a masterpiece from Tsao. She took the ball just inside the 18 and curved in a beautiful shot. The Pilots spent plenty of time in the JMU half and had over 20 shots.

For a team like the Pilots this was not a very good game, but I trust they will take care of business in practice and come out much better against Stanford.

by pms275 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:21 pm

JMU is a better team than their unranked status would lead one to believe. They also have speed, and Portland came out flat. The first JMU goal, however, woke up the Pilots. At that point they turned things around, though it took time to pound it in the goal because of the expected bunker defense.

The best thing to keep in mind as fans is that the games don't get easier the deeper we go, regardless of whether a team is seeded or not.

by Poopdeck Pappy on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:24 pm

I just got back from the game.

The Pilots started flat, gave up the early goal on a bonafide shot by JMU, and didn't seem to get rolling until after the media timeout. They played well after that, until the final five minutes when the game was well in hand. Dani had a great game with a goal and two assists. Jessica's shot was a cannon blast. It was also good to see Kori score one in her last game at Merlo.

Giving up two goals for the first time this season is indeed a cause for concern, however, as the Cardinal looms on the horizon. We'll need to come out fired up and play that way for the full ninety.

by wyeast on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:26 pm

I missed the game. Looking at the score makes me wonder - what the game was like beyond the box score?

Did we control the game but had a couple short lived but significant errors in defense? How would you fans describe it?

Yet.. we won and I'll take it. Lessons learned to prime the team for the game ahead.

by pms275 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:33 pm

We did control most of the game. Plenty more shots taken than allowed. JMU packed the box until Portland scored the second one.

Stuff happens, but Portland has to come out with urgency against Stanford. It seems they forgot there is a target on their back because of the program's history. JMU was not intimidated by Merlo Field and its atmosphere.

by PurpleGeezer on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:34 pm

I think you have to give JMU some credit. they came out strong and put pressure on UP from the start They tested what the ref would allow and took full advantage, at least until Megan decided to give some back, at which point the ref could see where things were going and reined both teams in a bit. . We looked pretty passive and paid for it.

To UP's credit, they didn't panic, stepped up the pressure, controlled the midfield almost completely, and played the short game almost to perfection.we pushed forward really hard, and two of the three goals were a direct result of it.

At the end we got passive again and paid again. Credit JMU for not giving up. How many times this year have we seen very good teams fold the tent and quit after UP got a 2 goal lead? and credit them also for being the only team this year - including the top 10 teams - to score two goals on us.

Interestingly we seemed most vulnerable when we DIDN't push forward, the opposite of what I would expect. It might be instructive for next week against Stanford. It the three games they have had this year against top teams, the only thing they could depend on was counters with O'Hara. It's something we are going to really key on, and this might have been a good lesson for the defense - for the mids, too. They need to track back better.

Folks are blaming the defense a bit for this one, but I thought they payed great games at both ends of the field. It was a bit more high risk than we want normally, but that's what happens when you start out in a hole.

by PurplePrideTrumpet on Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:37 pm

I would say the Pilots controlled possession for long stretches, but JMU was good at bunkering in and getting out on the counter. There were only a few defensive mistakes, but as you can see they were costly. Overall the defense had a solid game.

The Pilots were able to get into the penalty area several times but had a lot of shots deflected by defenders, just over the bar, and at least one hit the post. JMU kept a lot of people back and it made a difference.