Players who helped their standing in the Final Four [R]

College Cup Final [R]

Nice rundown of the players.

Maybe a Mod could put an [R] in this thread so we could mention the results. This might make the player explanations a little easier. Thanks.

-Tron

 

Of all the players on this list, I think Gregorio helped himself the most. His ability to control the ball at pace is very unusual and sets him apart.

Chad Marshall should definitely go P40.

 

Re: Players who helped their standing in the Final Four

I always assumed that citizenship issues prevented him from being part of the U-20 pool.

 

My top three.

Marshall didn't put a foot wrong all weekend, he should go project 40. Great in the air, good speed despite reading that he was slow, his distribution was perfect. A constant threat on set pieces.

Gregario is a nice tidy little player, reminds me of one of those great wee Scotish wingers which Scotland used to prodce. He can move at defenders with pace with the ball looking like it's tied to a string on his shoes. His runs were the highlight of the weekend.

Finally, Ibrahim from Maryland. Great skill and workrate. An excellent passer and aways looking to do the unexpected.

 

Players who helped their standing in the Final Four

Is Levesque the guy who the announcers were calling Lebeck? Or did I just hear his name wrong? I know he was a foward for Stanford.

Anyways, that guy moved *down* imo. He had numerous chances in the box where he took 2-3 extra touches when if he would have one timed it would have had a keeper in a very bad position. He also screwed up at the end of the Creighton game. He had that 1 on 1 with a second defender behind him. He got him on the wrong foot and instead of turning back he just lost control of the ball.

 

As always, great job Sandon.

Not much to add but it wouldn't be BigSoccer if I sat on my hands! Stanford has killer talent on their back line. Marshall could stroll into many MLS teams backline right now. He was the best talent in the final for me. Dunivant is going to be a good MLS left back. I hesitate to say he got forward well because he didn't exactly fly up the wings but he seemed to join the attack at the right times and at the same time wasn't caught out of the back. Comfortable with the ball at his feet, confident in a tackle, intelligent. I can see why he would be the first senior taken. Graham is a player as well. I don't know if intelligence translates much to understanding soccer but if it does Graham has big potential (Stanford academic all-american!). Other than Levesque I was pretty disappointed with the other forwards. Gregorio was impressive. Oh yeah, I think that Futagaki will make it but he'll have to do it in the center of the midfield. A year running the show in the A-League perhaps?

 

players

Another to consider:

I thought Matt Januz did a very good job when he was in the game. He gave Stanford some sparks when they needed it. He always worked hard and had some real good passes that could have been goals. He is only a sophmore now..watch for him to explode down the road.

Gregario was excellent..I thought his runs were amazing as well. How he created UCLA's goal in the Semi was brilliant. He made that goal occur. And it didn't look easy.

 

Gregorio impressed big time. Anyone know how tall he is? He didn't look that big on tv. But he was really the only person on the field who could beat people off the dribble. I loved the way he took people on.

Also, what's the deal with Tim Pierce who played up top for UCLA. I saw that he's invited to the Combine and they said on tv he was a first team AA, but I did not see it. He was not fast, couldn't hold the ball, and fouled a lot. Is this guy for real or not.

 

I generally agree with the thread, except that I wasn't terribly impressed with Dunivant. I think his lack of athleticism is going to be a real barrier to his prospects at the next level. I definitely don't think he'll be the second senior taken - my guess is he'll go early in the second round, but probably after at least 4 other seniors (Noonan, Tranchilla, Walsh and Warren) and maybe even behind a few surprise guys.

The guy I was taken with was Aaron Lopez. Not because of the goal, but his activity in the midfield. He seems to have the toughness and skill to be an excellent d-mid at the MLS level.

 

Anyone know what's up with Wagenfeuhr (sp?). I expected him to be on the list for the combine. Always liked him as a player and has a good left foot too.

 

top players

UCLA's back three and Stanford's two center backs were very good. Lopez for UCLA had two great games. Based on the games this weekend I did not see a player up top that will make it in the MLS. Please tell me Pierce from UCLA was hurt or sick, an AA? The frantic pace of the games really didn't give a creative central midfielder or playmaker an opportunity to show so I can't say anything about those players. I thought each team had a player or players outside that would show spurts of promise, but no one in my mind had an outstanding game or two games.

Now my question. With the limited sub rule in MLS, how can anyone judge how the attacking players would play in the pros? This is not a sarcastic question. How would a pro scout relate what went on in Dallas to the game at the next level?

 

Maybe I am alone on this, but the player I enjoyed watchung the most was Mike Tranchilla, Sr forward of Creighton. I thought he showed flashes of lovely individual 1v1 skills and was for the most part on his own with little help.

 

I wasn't impressed with any of the forwards(UCLA vs. Stanford). Levesque=Sasha Victorine v2.0. He's going to face an uphill battle in the MLS with faster, quicker thinking defenders. I'll be surprised if he makes a roster as anything other than a developmental player.

Dunivant supposedly graduated in three years--How old is he? 20? That's still a nice age, he reminds me somewhat of Brian Kamler and could have that kind of career in MLS.

Marshall looked great against some weak college attackers. Tim Pierce an AA? Good god. Marshall looks slow at the U20 international level, which is higher than what I just watched.

Gregorio stands out so much because he's like the only guy on the field who has any kind of consistent ball skills. Could easily have a successful career a la Ralston.

Honestly, not having watched much college soccer, it's easy to see why it's classified as a level below the A-league. At times I couldn't believe that these were two of the best teams in the country. Supposedly the college game has gotten better. Thank god I wasn't watching a few years ago.

 

I've seen little improvement in the college game over the years and I'm afraid that's the way it will be until the rules are changed.

I get the idea from his quotes that Tom Fitzgerald is very happy at UCLA and I doubt if he'll go back to MLS any time soon.

 

You are not alone. I don't think you can lay the blame for Creighton's loss at Tranchilla's feet. (In fact, I don't think you can blame anyone. Stanford just was the better team, and was unlucky not to have scored earlier.) When he had the ball in the offensive half, he had two or more defenders giving him attention. I noticed in one long camera shot that he had a defender marking him (not just staying in the general vicinity, but following tightly) at midfield when Stanford had the ball on attack. Given that Tranchilla scored the OT goal two years ago that gave Bret Simon his first trip to the finals, you can be sure the Stanford defenders had been prepped to watch Tranchilla closely.

Stanford's attention notwithstanding, Tranchilla worked hard to remain involved in the match. He received and distributed the ball well, often with one touch passing. I also was impressed with how hard he worked in the defensive half of the field. Not the fanciest effort, but I liked it.

The Omaha World-Herald quoted Tranchilla as saying that he lost the game for Creighton. (He blamed himself for not getting a pass to an open Nash in overtime. Warming quickly corrected him.) It says something about his character that (a) he claimed the responsibility for his team, and (b) that he even showed up at the post-game press conference (I don't think it was required of him).

One other comment about #14: I don't know how often it is used or by whom, but you gotta love the nickname "Tarantula."

*I am a Creighton fan, so the above opinion undoubtedly contains a bit of bias.

 

I watched 5 games of the NCAA tournament, 2 in person, 3 on TV. The final was the most poorly played. I think judging college soccer on the basis of the final is a bit like judging MLS on the basis of the LA/Rev MLS cup. Finals soccer is often not pretty.

I agree with the comments on Tranchilla, and yes, I love the nickname. It kinda went along with that spidery goatee thingy he was sporting.

Gregorio definately impressed me the most. He had two wicked dribbling runs in the semi, one of which resulted in a goal off his dish to Taylor? for a sitter finish.

He and Chad Marshall were the big winners, IMO. Chad would have made more of an impression on me if I hadn't already seen some Stanford games and knew he is big-time.

BTW, Roger Levesque is pronounced 'Le Vek', no s. That's why it sounded like Le Beck.

 

Aren't finals always kind of ugly? I thought MLS Cup 2002 was an ugly, but exciting, game.

College soccer seems, to me, most reminescent of the bundesliga in style. (even though it's played at about 1/2 the speed)

 

Players who helped their standing in the Final Four

Um, that's because it is below the A-league--the A-league being a professional league populated with former college players, players signed from overseas, players on the way up in their careers, players on the way down hoping to get one more shot, etc.

College is populated by a few who want a professional career, by others who are using soccer as a way to finance their education and by the vast majority--who receive limited or no scholarship money--because they love the game and competition.

Back on topic, I thought Dominic Mediate had a couple of nice runs, especially on the one out of the midfield (a few minutes prior to the no-call in the box).

What happened to Abe Thompson? I know he wasn't getting a lot of service from the midfield, but he just got lost. He had the one nice shot but didn't create anything for himself.

jgw

P.S. Both Maryland players.

 

Here's my list of players from each team who I believe helped their standing from over the weekend.

UCLA
Ryan Futagaki
Adolfo Gregorio
Scot Thompson

Stanford
Chad Marshall
James Twellman

Maryland
Sumed Ibrahim

Creighton
Mike Tranchilla
Joe Weiland

 

i am absolutely suprised not too many people are mentioning this lad sumed ibrahim, he was pure class on the field against ucla, no disrespect to mr gregorio but sumed ibrahim was just wicked, his skill was miles better than anyones out there, composure, knowledge of the game he was on top. and i havent even mentioned his goal.
i actually went to the matches to check out creightons mehdi ballouchy and he was good, with occasional flashes but sumed ibrahim was special.

oh, uclas back 3 was fantastic, i mean pace, size strength and composure, they also impressed me, hopefully the aforementioned lads make it to the professional ranks.

 

I was the one who brought up Tranchilla's work in the midfield and defensive areas. First, I don't mean to suggest that Tranchilla was a creative genius in the midfield or a defensive wizard; and, yes, I agree that he is at his best inside the box. What I liked was that he was not content to stay in the box and wait for the ball. (A couple of years ago, he was more content with that style.) With Stanford's pressure, he came back into the middle to help Creighton keep possession of the ball, often helping to switch the ball to the wings with a one-touch pass. Certainly, this is not creating dangerous opportunities or playing the role of a field general, but it is one of the little things that some forwards overlook.

Along those same lines, he came back when Stanford was pressing forward, getting a foot in to knock a ball away or putting pressure on Stanford's defenders and midfielders. Given how dangerous Stanford was playing high balls into the box, Tranchilla's efforts disrupted them a bit.

I will concede that neither element of play grabbed a lot of attention, which is in part why I brought it up. I also will concede a pro-Creighton, which may have colored my viewing of the game. (I have not rewatched it to see if my assessment still stands. I did make comments along those lines during the match, though.) And, further, I will concede that there are other forwards who do these things, some better.

Why I was pleased: I don't think Tranchilla has the speed, size or skills to be a featured MLS player. Thus, as a player who is good primarily/only inside of the box, he may not have a chance at MLS. Developing his play outside of the box helps his chances, IMHO.

P.S. I hope my tone is not too defensive or hostile. I have great respect for Sandon's analyses, as well as the fact that those analyses are not mean-spirited.

 

I agree with you, and have been a fan of Tranchilla's for a while. I don't know how much Sandon has seen him play. I like his ability to be a "grinder" when he has to be and put defenders under pressure. That's not a quality you see in most MLS forwards, and not in most of the forwards I've seen who'll be coming out this year.