2002 Final Four [R] (put all discussion here cos we lost the rest)

Well Maryland got royally ************ed. In my 20 years on this Earth, I've never seen a more blatantly obvious penalty not called. Kudos to the boys for fighting till the end.

 

I was so angry after watching the game yesterday that I wanted to come on here and rant and rave. Unfortunately, this is the first chance I've had to log on and it looks like there's been some sort of crash. I imagine I'm not going to say anything that hasn't been said before. However...

I'd heard that college soccer is very physical, but after the first half of Maryland-UCLA, I wondered how someone like Claudio Reyna could ever endure 4 years (or 3, or 2, or 1) of that kind of abuse. Every time someone tried to hold onto the ball for more than a second, they could be sure of getting run through the back, and very unsure of getting a foul called. No wonder Landon Donovan and Demarcus Beasley and any number of small, skilled players have decided to turn pro. If you're going to get beaten around like a rag doll, you may as well get paid for it

But the second half was something else altogether. To think this referee. is presumably among the "elite" of NCAA officials. To get a yellow card for getting thrown to the ground and getting your genitals stomped on. And to think this game was on national tv. And for Ty Keough to come up with some bs on UCLA's penalty kick: "well maybe the referee decided it wasn't part of the same play..."
This is not the kind of soccer I learned to love and admire. I wonder how many people tuned in to soccer for the first time and said "No wonder everybody says soccer sucks!" i said this same thing, and much worse.

 

From what I've read and from the comments above, sounds like Maryland ran into what NC's women ran into a few years ago in their final against Florida--a less skilled team which made up for that by being brutal and a ref who didn't punish such tactics--tactics that turned the game to s--t. And I drove five hours to see that...

The Creighton/Stanford game, by contrast, was a thing of beauty. That one I did catch on TV, and I'm glad I did.

What I fear is that the final will have a ref who will allow UCLA to continue their bullying tactics and that we SoccerAmerica readers will get to read yet another Gardner column denegrating college soccer and the US substitution of athleticism for skill.

And this time he may be right.

 

I didnt get the impression that UCLA was more thuggish than Maryland. Both teams were equally physical, its just the calls went UCLA's way.

My impression after the game is that it "deserved" to be a tie. In such a game where a winner must be chosen, it frequently comes down to a lucky break or two, and those happened to go the Bruins way.

As for the stomping, I can easily see how the ref missed it. He was down field and it occured where it would be obscured by the Maryland players legs and the UCLA players body. It was clearly visible from the side and overhead, but from field level and downfield there wasnt any angle to see it, and it wasnt a particularly obvious motion (no exagerated or violent movement, he just stepped down in a motion that was similair to what a player trying to get up would make). Yea, the guy should have been carded and probably tossed for it, but I dont blame the ref for missing that call considering his positioning and the pace of the game. Having 1 ref on the field just makes it impossible for him to see everything.

 

The Maryland players were taking a lot of dives during the match so it's not all that surprising that they didn't get the benefit of the doubt when a true foul came their way.

 

And the title goes to UCLA, an absolutely brilliant goal by Lopez. But the final was typical in that neither team played exceptionally well. The field was crap. But congrats goes to the Bruins, deserving champions of the NCAA prize.

 

I thought the UCLA defense was brilliant. They close so fast.

I'd be curious to hear from someone who attended live if the field looked that bad. I remember a few years back going to the finals at Davidson and the field in person looked really nice. When I watched the tape of the game I was surprised to see the football lines. You couldn't see them in person. I think TV can make a field look worse than it really is.

 

I noticed that the better of play continusly switched between the teams. It seemed that Stanford would win till about the last 5 minutes. I pretty good game. Congrats UCLA

 

That was one ugly game. Both teams were afraid to committ numbers to the attack so there was rarely a scoring chance. Games like this give soccer a bad name.

 

It wasn't the prettiest game. I agree, no teams wanted to committ numbers to the attack because they were afraid of what might happen if they did. But overall, it was pretty even, congrats to UCLA..

 

Bad Game

What suprise me if that the players' skill are so piss poor. Most of them even cannot make a clean trap, and many of them cannot even make a simple pass. They need too many touches before making decision. I know that this is not professional level, but come on, our pickup players have a better technical level than those NCAA champs.

Gardner will have his field day.

 

The field look much better in person.

UCLA played better posession.
Stanford played very direct.
Both were more physical than skillfull.
Brian Hall was in the middle.

 

The key to this UCLA title was depth. It rotated through a large number of attacking players and wore Stanford down. Gregorio started out playing wide left, then (IIRC) it was Futagaki, then finally Ty Maurin. By the end, all Abe Geiger could do was foul.

It's not an attractive strategy, but it's very effective when for playing two games in three days under college substitution rules ...

(Instead of recruiting foreigners, maybe some of those eastern coaches should check out SoCal.)

 

Re: Bad Game

That's what I was thinking. I couldn't believe the number of non-pressured passes that went straight to an opponent.

I can't recall seeing a game the quality of defending so completely outstripped the quality of attacking. I've certainly seen (too) many games where neither team really tried to scored, but this was a case of every single attack (except for that one) being squelched, most of them pretty quickly and easily.

It was really too bad that the 2 attacking teams went out in the semis. I was only able to watch bits and pieces of those, but I am inclined to agree with the posters above who thought the refs let too much stuff go. As for the penalty against Maryland, I'm have no officiating background, but I know I have seen that not called much more often than otherwise.

 

what was the call in the Maryland game?

 

With about 8 minutes left, Maryland's keeper came out and knocked the ball away moments before the UCLA attacker fell over him. At least, that's what it looked like on the replay. As I said, I have often seen very similar action produce nothing more than a 'play on'.
Apparently, it was especially significant because there had been a non-call at the other end minutes earlier. However, I didn't see that one, so I can't comment.

 

Re: Bad Game

I couldn't have said it better. The college game in general stinks because of the substituion rules and television timeouts. A Friday game, then a final two days later. This is the stuff that guarantees such chippy, sloppy play and will never produce professional-ready players. If I had any soccer ability at a young age, college play would be my last option. I can see why so many top prospects are bypassing college and going directly to the professional leagues. The college game must be changed. For years coaches' have pleaded for a split fall and spring schedule of weekly games and a decent playoff system to deaf ears. If the college game doesn't change, it will eventually become irrelevant as the MLS grows and prospers.

 

everything that is wrong with college soccer

I made this post after watching ODU-Wake and then Wake-Clemson in person. Glad to see a few agree with me after the finals. This is not about the players, there is more than sufficient talent to produce an attractive game. The NCAA stranglehold on the game continues to ruin it.

The guys I feel sorry for, the coaches. Most of these guys have families to support and soccer is their career. Where is there for them to go? It must be so frustrating to have all those resources just sitting there going wasted. Like owning a Ferrari in a town where the max speed limit is 35.

 

I think folks are WAY overreacting to these games, and assuming they are SOOOO terrible, and the players have "piss poor" skills, that television timeouts and the substitution rules "ruin" the game (and presumably the countdown clock does too, since no one has mentioned THAT one) and yada yada yada.

Of course, Gardner will have a field day. Gardner is an idiot.

First of all, you need to ask the question "compared to what?" You need to keep in mind these VERY important facts:

--First, when you see a college game, you are watching U18/U21 soccer -- it's probably not as good as 2nd division soccer or 1st division RESERVE soccer overseas. Ever see a Serie C game in Italy?? Hide the women and children.

Look, 90% or more of these kids will never see the inside of a paid professional locker room. They weren't all that great to begin with, and they aren't likely to get any better in professional environment or playing with "standard" rules. What you see is pretty much what you are going to get.

--Second, as you would see in any "reserve" or "2nd division" game, you are going to see some pretty fine moments -- Gregorio's carries, the cross and Marshall header for the golden goal winner, the Futagaki post rattling shot -- that show that SOME of these kids, the better ones who are likely to go onto better things, DO have some skills.

--Third, in any game where teams are evenly matched athletically, you are almost ALWAYS going to have defense win the day. That's soccer.

--Fourth, and finally, the venue at SMU was simply horrible with terrible turf where controlling the ball would have been a challenge for EPL players.

I do agree that this single season and crowded fixture schedule, with two big matches in three days, is very goofy and does need to be changed. It's just not physically healthy for these young men to have so many games and practices in such a short period of time.

But even if you corrected that, I don't think the level of play would improve ALL that much. These are VERY young men playing this game, many of whom have, in the end, marginal talent levels (again, comparably speaking), especially since our truly great young players -- Donovan, Beasley, et.al., are in 1st division professional leagues right now.

So you have to understand the context, and manage your expectations appropriately. Having inflated expectations is not good for your mental well being.

 

Karl, I think most people are reacting to the way that NCAA soccer is billed as MLS's 2nd division. I don't think it's true, just that the greater perception appears to be along those lines. Still, you'd think at some point guys would start developing a first touch, especially when they're gettin' a friggin' scholarship.

It's easy to see why MLS looks for underclassmen or juniors IMHO.

 

Also, if colleges are doling out $20,000 athletic scholarships for soccer play, wouldn't it be wise to develop a decent game (ie: FIFA rules) and give the coaching staff and players a basis for skilled play rather than multiple substitions that usually create a chippy track meet? I've seen enough college play over the years to blanch at the mere mention of the game. I've seen virturally no improvement in play in the past ten years and I doubt if I ever will unless the NCAA is willing to play soccer like the rest of the world. If gridiron, baseball and basketball college programs can produce professional-ready athletes, then why can't collegiate soccer programs?

 

I think Ty helps fosters that misperception during the broadcast, but we ought to cleanse our mind of that RIGHT now. It's not realistic to reach this conclusion.

Again, I think the venue made most first touches difficult. A better pitch would have made for some better soccer.

MLS goes after youngsters because, well, by 18 most TRULY superior talent has made itself apparent. It doesn't take a degree in astrophysics or microbiology to recognize it: you could, I could. But it's rare. Most kids who rise to high levels in soccer -- say Regional ODP -- are in the end just "fair" relative to one another.

Also, talent in college is diluted -- even the exceptional talent.

In 1998, I saw in person at Northwestern's lakeside field Indiana win the Big 10 title; they went on, if you recall, to win the NCAAs. There were five professional level players on that team, and they were obvious after about the first five minutes of play: Nick Garcia, Lazo Alavanja, Dema Kovalenko, Yuri Lavrinienko, and Alexksy Korol.

You know who was THE best player on the field in THAT tournament?

Alavanja.

Yet his career is in tatters. Kovalenko is a serviceable MLS player, but is maddeningly inconsistent (and he left EARLY!). Korol was a poacher; Lavrinenko could dance rings around the competiton with the ball in college but STRUGGLED in the A league. Garcia may turn out to have the best career, but I would be shocked if he got more than a dozen national team caps; we have other better options at central defense.

But I enjoyed watching Indiana beat Penn State in OT that crisp fall day; there was some decent, and certainly intense soccer.

So, let's not get carried away here. It's 3rd division soccer AT BEST, and that's how we should watch it. It's foolish to get your hopes up.

 

I haven't watched much college soccer so I'm not going to make any generalizations.
But if the play and the refereering in the MD-UCLA game I watched is anything close to normal, then it needs to change. That kind of match is not good for college soccer, not good for the college players who hope to move on, and its certainly not good for US soccer.
I'm not even going to suggest what needs to be done to change it. But what I saw was unacceptable.

 

Wanderer,

I don't know who told you that NCAA=2nd Division, but they were full of crap. Of course the A-League is superior - its made up of fully developed men who have, against tough odds, made soccer their profession (and most of them were outstanding college players in their own right). Karl is exactly right - this is amateur soccer, and if you want to compare it to something it should be compared to something similar. If MLS is roughly comparable to second-tier European leagues, then compare it to Scottish or Swiss reserve or amateur teams, where most of the players are not going to go on to successful pro careers. I think it probably matches up alright in that context.

And can we put away the notion that all soccer in this country only exists as a means of furthering national team success? Watching Futagaki cry for victory or Taylor Graham weeping in defeat as he unwrapped his bruised head - this has independent meaning and has drama and context all by itself. Players play in college (some have questioned why bother) because it means something to them to pull on a Stanford or UCLA jersey and spend a season of camaraderie with teammates.