While watching one of the women’s games this past weekend, I
realized there is an interesting difference at the semi-pro level between the
women’s and men’s game, and it lies in the expectations of coaches. When
talking about plays/system/scheme I’m starting to believe that coaches in
general overestimate what male players can do and underestimate what female
players can do.
To be sure, at the elite level of the women’s game, this
isn’t the case at all. I know staffs from across the country who are extremely
demanding of their players, and if you looked solely at their schemes they are
every bit as complex and advanced as their male counterparts. But at the
“regular” level of the game, there just seems to be so much of the same ol’,
same ol’ and I *know* the players are capable of more! You see teams lined up
in an “I” formation probably 90% of the time and running three plays out of it.
Or Double Wing teams….which is OK, if you look crisp. I do wish teams
would remember that we’re in the entertainment business. Boring can be OK if
you’re winning, but if you’re boring AND losing, you won’t have a fan base for
very long.
Me personally, I probably tend to overestimate on both sides
what my players are capable of. I always think I’m going to install a bunch of
stuff, and then have to dial it back a little. The difference is that my female
players will never say, “Oh, we can’t do that” whereas my guys will. With the
women, I have to look at what our results are and what the reality is out on
the field, and then dial it back. With the guys, they’ll flat out tell me
something isn’t going to work before they even try it. In that respect, I
definitely prefer the women’s approach – “OK, cool – let’s do this” and then
trusting me to adjust. I think that with the guys, they’ve grown up thinking
about the game certain ways, and those high school or JC thought patterns tend
to stay with them. When they’re presented with something new, only those with
adaptable personalities are able to go with it.
Anyway, I’m not sure why there is a difference, it just
seems to me that there is. One other thing I’ve noticed is that men don’t seem
to have the ability to do things at a learning tempo – it’s like they’re afraid
to look like they’ve lost at anything. They don’t see the big picture – that we’re
trying to learn a new concept or new play, and might have to run it a bunch of
times in a row to get it right.
Sometimes it’s OK if you have someone from the
same side of the ball as the opposing player. But if it is an offensive drill
and you’ve got defenders over there (or vice versa), you can forget about a
learning tempo. It is flat out competition. And I can see the guys’ point (sometimes)
– they’re out there to compete and make each other better. I get that. But in
order to get better at something, you usually have to start out doing it slowly
and make a few mistakes along the way. That’s why these last few weeks with the
Nighthawks in no pads were so valuable. At appropriate times, guys were flying
around making plays. But at others we were able to get some stuff down before
stuff starts happening really fast – like next week in pads!
***
Over the last couple of weeks in the women’s game, one score
stood out to me above all others: Portland beating Seattle handily (40 to 0).
That signals a sea change in the Pacific Northwest, where for the last few
years Seattle has reigned supreme. I’m not sure if this is a result of Portland
improving *that much* after the merger, or of Seattle dropping off. Quite
honestly, right now I’m thinking there is a bit of a drop off in Seattle,
because I saw their 13-0 score over the Tacoma Trauma and was surprised by that.
However, the Fighting Fillies and the Shockwave combining forces had to have
made them better. Either way, Portland is the team to beat up there, and if
they truly did improve that much, then the War Angels had better look out.
Speaking of the War Angels, looks like they’ll finally play
a team worth playing this week, when they face the Sin City Trojans. Both teams
are at 3-0, and the Trojans haven’t been scored on yet. I’m going to pick the
War Angels by a comfortable (28+) margin.
There’s been some debate about which team is better, the Chicago
Force or the Dallas Elite. I don’t know for sure, although right now I’m
leaning towards the Elite. However, in looking at remaining schedules, the
Force also play the Divas, they play Boston AND they play Pittsburgh. If Chicago
gets through their schedule unscathed, then I think the tide turns towards
them. The Elite aren’t likely to be tested again until maybe when they play the
War Angels, and even then I think they have way too much speed for Central Cal
to handle. There’s some talk about the Elite’s game this week against KC as
being a big one. I’m sure they’d love to hype it as that, but I’m not seeing it
as close.
Over in the IWFL, there have been a couple of rating systems
that have teams other than Utah as #1. Obviously these people have never
watched football in their life. Sure, Utah’s strength of schedule may stink,
but in the IWFL, saying someone has a strong schedule is like saying Doc was
the tallest of the Seven Dwarfs. Utah remains a Top 10 team in the nation – not
just in the IWFL, but in the WFA as well. Too bad we won’t find out how good
they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment