The increasingly foreign flavor in men's D1 soccer

And you are were the one that cherry picked the birthdates in them to include an exceptional outlier. Then when I brought in a wider set data from same population and showed how you tried to distort things to support your absurd argument you ignored all the question about it.

First Notre Dame is one team for one year. You not only failed to demonstrate that the large majority of Notre Dame players are Red-shirts (either historically or on last years roster), but you didn't even pretend to show that it is a prevalent strategy for other top D1 teams. Another time you found one exceptional case of a walk on at one school and try to dramatically over generalize it to a many players at many schools. Of course ran away from the argument as soon as I challenged you to show it was nothing more than an extreme outlier of a well regarded HS player that wasn't sure he wanted to play soccer in college. There is a clear pattern here.

I have no idea why Munoz played for Vigo. Maybe he's completely lying when he said he was offered a professional contract. Is that what you are claiming? Or maybe he needed another year of schooling to finish High School and it was hard for him to find a high level team to play for when he turned down a professional. Ben Spencer moved from New Mexico to play for Salt Lake and then to California to play with Chivas USA. If he would have chosen to go the UCSB rather than sign a professional contract he would have been eligible. Lucas Cawley went to from Real St. Lakes program to the Portland Timbers and still remained eligible. A bunch of other kids involved with Real Socal's academy came from outside of the area. What you can't seem to wrap your head around as that not everyone in world conforms the same educational time frames as the US. As I pointed out in another post you ignored is that some of the higher level foreign educational programs (you know, the kind of program for kids that are interested in going to college as opposed to trade school or pursuing a professional contract) require an extra year of schooling.

You mean don't actually expect Hararea to explain why Hararea has ignored all the c*** on the floor since Hararea posted about the small piece that managed to find sticking. Instead of pretending to refute something, how about a single attempt at a semi comprehensive example. It is pretty obvious to virtually anyone that follows college soccer that there are a lot of talented foreign kids playing and for you to continue to argue the primary reason they do so is because many are a year older than the median US kid when they start is simply absurd.

 

I used the entire TDS list, not the portion that best proved my point. In contrast, you picked a small sub-set of the data with the most extreme outlier and pretended you randomly chose it. I then expanded the range you choose with all the foreign and US players for that range and asked you to detail the difference in ages between foreign players and US players in your selected range - which of course you have continued to refuse address, Of course you will stop. Because when challenged you can't back anything up.

 

The original data I used had all 100 players. You chose a subset of a subset of the top 10 players of the list. I then expanded your subset to include all 10 players of subset as I wrote above. I was very unsuccessful at find names other than former academy players so I stopped - especially as my point was made. I believed you purposely chose a small sample including Lev-Ari but I'll take your word that you had not.

You "prove" anything with that small a sample, with that big of difference in variables. But it does severely bring into question you statements that foreign players are only better do to their age.

It is understood that due to differences in educational system the foreign players tend to be a year older. It is also well understood age provides an advantage in men's soccer as college senior will play at a higher level than when he was a freshman. Part of this is due to differences in physical maturity which tends to almost completely erode by age 20 and part tends to do with experience gained by playing and practicing at the college level. What is completely unsubstantiated is your repeated claims that foreign players have not increased the quality of play in soccer and that they only appear to play better due to their age. Also completely unsubstantiated is your argument that there are plenty of similarly capable US players that could replace them. If you have backed either of these up, please correct me.

Take Utah Valley University which is saw on the NSCAA broadcast. The best player on the field (at least for the large portion of the game I watched) was Paul Hoffmeister who you would typically call a "washout from a Professional academy." He was born in the first half of 1995, and as is typical of a player attending a Gymnasium HS, he is a year older than most Freshman matriculating from American High Schools. The second best player on the field was another freshman, Karson Payton, born 1 day removed from 1991. Payton played with Real Salt Lakes academy and has apparently been training with their reserve team. Is he only good because of his advanced age (should he continue to play for 4 years, Payton would be older than your outlier Lev-Ari)?

 

Here are your words directly quoted in their entirety.

You somehow believe that any college coach "worth his salt" can find unrecruited players and (or those recruited to schools with poor coaches) and turn them into players like Stolz, Larin, Lev-Ari, Bell, Delgado to players like Paul Hoffmeister of UVU. This is ridiculous and demonstrates little true understanding of player development. The large majority of a players development occurs below age 16. Once kids pass through their sensitive development they can still acquire skill, but at a much lower rate and and a reduced level, much like the difference between a young child learning a new language as compared to a college kid. But unlike a college age kid learning a new language, virtually every kid playing at a D1 level has been in serious training for over decade so probability of any dramatic improvement is unlikely (though clearly possible in unusual circumstances).

What may appear as "big" improvements simply chances to play or play in a new position. In some cases there are issues with injuries that may not be obvious. There is also the possibility of a technical or decision making flaw that had been serious enough to keep the player out of the lineup. Differences in maturity status can mask potential but these differences are almost completely gone by age 20 (Basketball where stature is critical has some of the most extreme cases - David Robinson, Scotty Pippen, Dennis Rodman). Clearly development of muscle mass continues to increase through mid-20's and if we were talking about a sport like American Football where muscle extreme muscle mass is a critical success factor, I'd say your extreme focus on age would have more merit.

In professional soccer advanced age is considered detrimental rather than a positive. Since his Payton's age is widely known, I'm fairly certain RSL would have factored in his age relative to his ability when the made the decision to have him practice with the reserve team. I selected Payton because his age is an extreme outlier for a US player just as is Lev-Ari which you often harp on.

 

I just went down the list from recent threads in this post. I could do the same for a large number of teams.

It is the reality. It is large part genetics, part physical skill, part experience and part luck (no injuries and an opportunity to play). The physical skill and experience are developed with years of training and playing. A few hundred more hours in a somewhat improved environment is not going to make that much of a difference as compared to thousands of prior hours - especially those at a earlier phases of development when the body is much more receptive to skill acquisition. There is much disagreement on this within the research community.

It is why a kid like Akindele can skip the DA, go study to be a EE for four years in at a division II school and still be a leading candidate for MLS rookie of the year this year. It is why a kid like Jordan Morris can go from playing High School ball one year, to Academy Player of the year the next year, to the men's national team camp a little over a year after that. It is why a kid like Fagundez can come out of the Revolution academy at 17 and hold his own in professional games while many of his academy teammates with the same academy coaching couldn't draw interest from decent D1 programs. To believe coaches have the level impact as you do, just demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part. Certainly another year of development, especially for a late maturing athlete is an advantage. But it is nowhere near the advantage you seem to believe it to be.

On the other hand, coaches can can easily negatively impact kids if they are denied a chance to get playing experience. That is why college soccer, for all its well known flaws, was a better path to development than was MLS in the early days of home grown signings before teams started arranging loans so kids could gain the necessary playing experience. It takes years to build a career but it can be destroyed far, far faster.

 

Another example of how you fail to grasp what coaching does and doesn't do. I've watched Zardes since he was a teen. When he played with the Galaxy academy they played him as a defender. When Arena played him his first two years he played him mostly out of position on the as an outside mid. He missed most most of his first year as an injury so he came out way behind. Even mature players like Dempsey struggle when missing training and coming to a new league.

Zardes was the consensus top forward available when he came out and possibly even the year before. So while you may believe he dramatically changed as a player, in reality what has happened is that a player with very well known talent finally got a chance to regularly play his preferred position after getting used to the speed of play of a new league. Let me repeat: Genetics + Years of Training + Game experience + Opportunity. What changed most dramatically were the latter two (a year of experience to get used to the speed of play of the league and the opportunity to regularly play as a forward). What of course didn't change is the most critical aspects - his genetics and years of training his body to control the ball and understand the game. If Zardes was still mostly playing as on outside mid, we'd still be talking about the all the glimpses of potential he shows. The question isn't whether players improve. Of course they do. It is instead a question of how much difference coaching makes.

You unrealistically expect any coach "worth his salt" to take undrafted (or in the case of college coaches where you've made this statement, kids who aren't recruited because the mostly lack the ability of those that are) and make them MLS starters with their coaching. If you really believe it is Arena's great coaching that has make the difference, why hasn't he turned McBean,, Villarreal, Charley Rugg etc. into a player like Zardes? You basically take a somewhat valid concern that many US kids come in at a disadvantage because they are not as fully developed and turn it into a ridiculous xenophobic rant.

 

Hararea - you can claim lies and distortions all you want but your position is not credible. Anyone read through the thread and draw their own conclusions. If you really believe it is Arena's great coaching that has make the difference, why hasn't he turned McBean,, Villarreal? Is it simply because Zardes was older rather than the physical ability and prior training? If college coaches should be able to turn players with limited talent into starters why can't former college coaches like Arena, Porter, Schmid be held to your same standards at the next level?

 

You are probably right - most have ignored it because it is silly. And to the extent I've contributed to this I apologize. I've always respected your posts and don't see how we've rambled down this road. I know you feel I've distorted things, and to some extent I possibly have, but listen to Andrew Wiebe's take on Zardes at about the 1:00 minute mark "not after you're just getting settled playing up top after a rookie year of playing mostly on the left wing." It is mostly a worthless video but does his take sound like "Arena started out Zardes at forward in his first season (this is his second) and only moved him out to midfield after he flopped there." Also, did you happen to see the last game against Montreal when Zardes moved out wide? From my point of view of his touches when he move out wide were give away's. He's got speed and a good work rate, but that is not his skill set.

Also

You accuse me of being a bully but what is this? Do I interject in completely unrelated threads things like Ludwig Ahl wouldn't have been the best player on the field for UCSB if he wasn't a freshman as a 94, rather than a 95 or 96 like US kids?

You've accused me over and over of distortion but what were you trying to do with the comments about Meyer's free kicks? What exactly did you feel he struggled with on his kicks prior to this year? From my point of view if you look at the stats, this is the first year he's become a regular starter. I could be wrong but my guess is that he's now taking free kicks because he's no longer on the bench as Gunn seems to have moved to an attack that fits the skill set of a less athletic, but more skilled player.

 

Given that he scored twice in a little over 450 minutes, could his play at forward have anything to do with the fact that the regular forward during that time was busy playing for the US in the Gold cup?

Really? How many free kicks can you recall him taking in previous years and what areas of the field did he them? Since he's improved so much, what where wrong with the others that you can recall? And since you seemed to have watched Meyer so closely, who where the other free kick takers on Stanford and what did they do well or do poorly?

 

Sure he's improved. Players tend to do so with experience which is why they need to play games. You brought up Zardes and claimed he was a "washout" at forward simply because he was playing out of position to accommodate the coaches needs much like he was this afternoon when he played most of the game as a mid so Gordon could play up on top.

If you really have done so it should be easy to answer the questions about your knowledge of Stanford's program or does see in person mean you went to a game once? I've seen most of the top teams in the West in person. But given the fact that the player in questions bio states he had started a grand total of 3 games in the prior 4 years (he's a red shirt), anyone with a modicum of understanding about college soccer would realize players who average 1 start a year aren't their teams dead ball specialist.

This is a thread on foreign players and this the type of stuff you are hanging your hat on.

 

The question is not whether coaches can improve players, improve programs by recruiting better talent, or improve a teams performance by getting the players they have to play better. Of course all these things are true. In is instead a question about the validity of the xenophobic rants against foreign players.

I don't know much about Navy but I know enough about kids that have been recruited to the service academy's to know they get some pretty good players. One local player I have seen play is Derek Vogal who is probably one of the better athletes in college soccer. He was certainly not one the prettiest players on the ball as a youth player, but he was talented enough to play in a professional soccer academy and to get a call up into the U20 national team camp. As good as Brandt may or may not be, he's not going to be able to significantly influence motor patterns and decision chunks that take hundreds of hours of deliberate practice for each player and also prepare his team to play 20 or so games in a short season with the limited practice time the NCAA allots. So when a foreign "washout" like Leo Stolz comes to the US, it is his physical ability and prior training that are exceptional, not simply the fact that they may be on average older as freshman.