I finally caught my first Stanford game of the season, and am pleased to report that the Cardinal aren't nearly as bad as their record. But they lost again -- 1-0 -- and are now a jaw-dropping 2-8-2. They simply don't have a goal-scoring threat, and if you can't score, you obviously can't win. Even with the lack of scoring (or even scoring attempts), this was a fun game to watch. Stanford and Washington both play good soccer, and that's reflected in the way that so many of their alumni reach the pros. (I wonder how many recruits keep this factor in mind ...) Washington's goal came from a short corner kick late in the first half. A player was left alone at the edge of the box, and he was given enough time to glance up before shooting the ball through a crowd of bodies, past an unsighted keeper. Apart from that, the Huskies didn't really threaten. Team captain C.J. Klaas was a non-factor, and he left the game holding his lower back. Speaking of injuries, Husky center back Kevin Murray took the worst of a nasty head-to-head collision with a teammate, and he also apparently injured his leg in the fall. I hope he's ok. As for Stanford, the headliner is Chad Marshall, and he played an exemplary game -- won every ball, both in the air and on the ground. I thought his best moment was a slide tackle where he popped immediately to his feet and sent a clean pass forward. If he doesn't go pro after this season, Stanford should expel him for being stupid. To Marshall's left, Todd Dunivant's old position is filled by junior James Twellman. He looks good there, having gotten a lot stronger (and adopted his brother's haircut). It was nice to see Dunny in the stands applauding him at one point. As for Stanford's freshmen, they didn't show too much, although it's clear that center mid Marcus Ryan has a lot of potential. Kyle Shimizu is another interesting one -- he's quick and evasive on the wing, but he needs to provide better service to his teammates. Considering that Stanford's juniors and sophomores (minus Marshall) are not so impressive, several of the current freshman really need to come through.
Thanks for the report. Given that the Pac-10 doesn't have a tournament, it's going to be very tough for Stanford to make the NCAA's unless they somehow manage to turn things around and win the championship. And, with UCLA, Washington, Cal and OSU all playing well, that seems very unlikely. You're line about Marshall is a classic and very true. If I wasn't too cheap a bastard to pay for my BS membership, I think I'd use that as my signature. Sorry to hear that Klaas didn't impress. I heard good things from his performance witht he 20s last week. Hope his injury wasn't too bad.
I believe that is Bret (not Kyle) Shimizu. http://gostanford.ocsn.com/sports/m-soccer/mtt/shimizu_bret00.html But either way, he is an interesting player. Very dynamic and confident on the ball -- especially for a true freshman. Twellman is again proving his versatility. Stanford has used him up top, in midfield, and also at the back. A pessimist might look at their record and conclude they are truly awful this season. I'm not sure that's accurate -- 6 of the 8 losses have been by just one goal. There is hope. Especially in the freshman class. If I am right, this is just Coach Simon's second class. Certainly Marshall was a coup for him last year, but he may leave early. The rest of the sophomore class has not seen as much time. Hopefully, Simon has figured out how to pitch Stanford to aspiring players, and how to target those players that can make it through the admissions process.
Thx for the correction on Bret Shimizu. As I said in my initial post, I agree that Stanford is far from awful. But I don't see where the goals are going to come from ... certainly not Sean Whalen, and it sure looks as if Darren Fernandez isn't focussed enough to become a good player. Any idea why Matt Janusz didn't play? (Was that him I saw on crutches?)
Given the admission standards at Stanford, the recent seasons have been exceptional. I heard two years ago, that, of 23 recruits who wanted to enroll, only 3 were let in. With the recent trend of the top U-17 players trying to graduate HS early with online courses, I would believe it isn't getting any easier for Coach Simon.
According to the NSCAA page, Stanford's opponents so far have a W/L record of 104-52-13. Only two of their games have been against teams with a losing record (the two wins). Six of their games have been against teams that are currently ranked, and they still have to play UCLA twice and Washington again. That's a REALLY tough schedule, and that probably has a lot to do with their woes this season.
He's nursing a groin injury. Also, Mike Wilson's away playing for NZ. The Card are not that bad of a team. However, without a consistent scoring threat, the squad doesn't look any better than their opponents. You can't rely on the breaks going your way all the time so that you can put onE in the net. The Card have yet to find a way to replace the contributions of the graduated seniors - Dunivant, Levesque, Graham, and Maliza. Those four were the core of the team the last few years. As a result, the Card have struggled this year. Scoring goals is at a premium. It didn't help that Robby sat out a month from a quad injury; I think his first game was against OSU. In a few weeks, Chad will be away playing for the U-20s. It will be a struggle the rest of the season. GO STANFORD!!!
Folks with CSTV will be able to check out Stanford themselves Monday evening. Their game with UCLA will be shown tape delay Monday. (It's being played Sunday.) The Cardinal should have Marshall for all of the regular season games as the 20s aren't slated to leave till the 24th of November (right after MLS Cup), and the NCAA tournament starts the 22-23. Of course, if no U20 players make the MLS Cup, they could leave a week earlier though that still wouldn't impact Marshall's availabilty for the regular season.
I agree. In fact, if I were a coach, I would fear Stanford as a team more than anyone else in the entire west, despite their horrible record. They just don't seem to have that player who can change the game. Having seen them twice this year, I still think their play is a class above the other teams, even when they lost. Its just that they are somewhat predictable on offense. Unfortunately, the midfielders aren't carrying any of the scoring load either. But I agree, those guys don't seem capable of getting the job done. I thought last year that Twellman could eventually be all-american as an outside back, but less than average as a forward. And while I like Wilson and Geiger, I really think they need more dynamic play in midfield to help free up space for the forwards. I am a fan of Janusz, and think it is unfortunate that Stanford's lack of offense may hurt his chances of getting award recognition (and subsequent attention from MLS or A-League teams). At least he is a junior . . .
Stanford I agree with the statement that Stanford's admission standards significantly hurt their recruiting diversity because they simply cannot always get the best players they want because the best players aren't always great students. Other schools such as UCLA, Cal, Notre Dame, Duke, etc. can bring in the top notch players even if they may have suspect academic histories. I have heard that even the Ivy Leagues have lower standards for athlete admissions than Stanford.
As the season approaches its (merciful) end, a note of optimism. TopDrawerSoccer suggests that the Cardinal is "in the running" for 12 of the 100 or so top recruits -- http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/References/top_100.html. Perhaps a standout forward or two will run the admissions gauntlet. Another plus -- this year's freshman class has gained an uncommon amount of experience. Ryan, Shimizu, Thompson and co. have alot of minutes. And Twellman looks rather better at left back than at striker. Perhaps necessity has found his best position.
Re: Stanford I disagree with this general theory. And while I can't speak for the other schools, I know for a fact that all the students at Cal have the opposite view. They believe that Stanford places a higher premium on athletics, thus lowering standards for student athletes to the point where Cal cannot compete with them in most sports. All of this is more-or-less opinion, of course. But look at Stanford's numbers when compared to every school in the nation: http://gostanford.ocsn.com/trads/stan-trads-champs.html Highlights: 2nd most NCAA championships: 85 Most NCAA team championships since 1980: 68 Most NCAA indiv. championships: 374 While you may not see Stanford as a big athletic power because they aren't winning many football and basketball championships (although they are generally competitive in the pac 10), they are consistently one of the top schools when all sports are considered. This tells me that academic standards are hardly a factor.
Soccerislife is right on the money. Admissions for the "revenue" sports (football and basketball) are probably somewhat relaxed; however, Stanford doesn't bend very much for other athlete admissions. It is not a huge school (6500 undergrads), and its standing on college comparisons would suffer if coaches were given a blanket OK on admissions. Same goes for the Ivies, of course. I think we're looking at 1300 SATs, coupled with near-A grade point averages. The big state universities (UC's included), due to large student bodies, are affected less by relaxed admission standards for their athletes. If a coach wants a recruit, he almost always gets him (provided NCAA minimum requirements are satisfied). I'm speculating about some of the other outstanding medium-sized private universities (Duke, Notre Dame), but I would assume they have higher admission standards as well.
As of 1997, Stanford's admissions and grad rates for the football team were tops in the nation [link]. Stanford's football team's SAT was 1108, & the team graduation rate was 94%. OTOH, the weenies' average SAT for their pointyball team was 877, and the graduation rate was a pathetic 44%. Hey tub-of-lard, did you say Stanford places a higher premium on athletics? That Stanford lowers its academic standards for student-athletes? Consider these facts: Cal's 2002 graduation rates for all students and student-athletes Code: [size=2] UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRESHMAN-COHORT GRADUATION RATES All Students Student-Athletes # 1995-96 Graduation Rate 82% 69% Four-Class Average 83% 60% [/size] Stanford's 2002 graduation rates for all students and student-athletes Code: [size=2] STANFORD UNIVERSITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRESHMAN-COHORT GRADUATION RATES All Students Student-Athletes # 1995-96 Graduation Rate 93% 90% Four-Class Average 92% 89% [/size] I suppose Stanford's academic standards are so low that the student-athletes grad rates are at par with the whole student population. OTOH, the weenies' student-athlete grad rate is so atrocious that the spread between the meatheads and the student-population is the worst in the country [link]. Cal has had that dubious distinction for the past two years. Stanford has had the nation's best athletics program for nine years straight, and academic standards were hardly a factor in it??? Tub-of-lard, you absolutely have no idea of what you're talking about. The conclusions you make on the basis of hearsay and wishful thinking are truly a piece of work.
Hey friend, settle down turbo. First of all, I didn't say that. I said that I know what people who went to Cal claim. I can't say what Stanford students say because the ones I know know haven't discussed it, and maybe should have solicited that opinion. And, getting past your insults, I enjoyed the facts you provided in your post. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I realize the depths of this rivalry between schools. But save your breath for someone who cares because I didn't go to either school and to be honest, am more of a fan of Stanford athletics in general. If you get over your emotions on the subject, you will see that we are actually in agreement: 1. Posters on this thread are claiming that it is an anomaly that Stanford has been highly competitive in soccer because high academic standards for student athletes will hold the program back when compared to competing schools with lesser standards. 2. The facts I gave on the number of Stanford championships won was not to conclude that they have lower standards, it was to refute the idea that they can't compete with other schools because of those standards. My conclusion is that whatever the academic standards for student athletes may be, Stanford is still winning more championships than anyone else. So high standards are not a factor in recruiting top athletes and competing with less-academic schools. You proved that Stanford student athletes are smarter. Congratulations -- you actually strengthened my argument. One could say that higher graduation rate and lower number of academic strugglers actually helps athletic programs to be more successful.
I think Cachundo was just teasing about the rivalry stuff. Anyway, it's worth looking at the list of sports where Stanford has won championships in the last ten years: men's and women's cross country men's and women's swimming synchronized swimming men's golf men's gymnastics men's and women's tennis men's track men's and women's volleyball men's and women's water polo sailing What you see is that the great majority of championships are either in west coast sports, or in sports where you only need a handful of standout athletes to win. In sports that require deeper rosters, Stanford hasn't won many championships. IMO, Stanford's admissions standards make it hard for a team to have enough depth.
Yes, Chad will most likely go pro after this season after being picked up at the World Championships, but you have to remember that he is still relatively young (just turned 19). I know Chad has been debating going pro for a couple of years, - so if for some reson he does not go pro he is not being "stupid"- this is a huge personal decision that would probably mean going to play overseas- a huge life changing event- while he is still a teenager.
Re: Re: Stanford - Washington [R] It's a huge move, no question. At the same time, Marshall is a kid who already moved cross-country at age 15 to pursue a dream. Four years later, he's one of the few who still has a real chance of making it happen. Now, perhaps that dream isn't as important to him any more, but what I think would be "stupid" is for him to decide that he can pass another year as an amateur without hurting his potential as a player.
Re: Re: Re: Stanford - Washington [R] Yes, I can deffinately see where you are coming from, and that is a good point about him being 15 and moving away from home. I guess it is just hard for me to see past the emotional side of things because i know Chad personally and know how hard of a decision this has been for him. And this dream of playing pro is still VERY important to him, he is just torn between staying in school, where everything is stable for him, or going pro where anything could happen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stanford - Washington [R] Makes sense, and I think you raise a valid point. It's easy for us to talk about him giving up his day-to-day life and chasing his fortune. But in reality, that's not such a simple matter. It's good to hear that he's been weighing over this decision carefully, not simply postponing it, or deciding on impulse.