RSS
ATOM
advertisement
Counterattack: Does The MLS Draft Make A Difference?
Is Major League Soccer's Superdraft a pointless exercise? Two sides of the issue square off in Counterattack.
Jan 15, 2009 10:25:07 PM
This week's Counterattack takes on the issue of the MLS Draft. Zac Lee Rigg of Rigg's Replays doesn't see game-changers coming out of this year's selection, while Andrea Canales of the Canales Daily believes the draft can still have an impact on the ensuing MLS season.
Is January's Major League Soccer draft really all that important to a team's chances the rest of the year?
Zac Lee Rigg: No, the draft has a minimal impact on a team's chances in the upcoming year. Take a look at 2008's top 3 picks: Chance Myers, Brek Shea, and Anthony Beltran. Who? Look at 2008's rookie of the year: Sean Franklin was a mainstay for the Galaxy - the worst defense of the year. Sure, it's good for bleeding in some squad players and as chips in deals, but generally a draft won't decide a season.
Andrea Canales: Last year's picks were picks for the future. Shea is still a teenager, for example. Also, you have to admit that as bad as the Galaxy defense was, it would have been worse without Franklin. That they were even battling for the playoffs in the final weeks of last season was attributable to a certain extent to him. I think Omar Gonzalez will help that team this year. It's better, though, to look at the overall success of teams who have drafted carefully. The New England Revolution have build their dynasty of playoff runs on smart choices in the draft.
Rigg: But future seasons isn't the question. A team can't become a playoff squad based on a good draft. If they are already there, they can maintain that level by investing a couple years down the road. But they can't pick up a handful of players who are ready to contribute significantly in the first season. Usually there will be two or three in the entire draft that will get major minutes their rookie seasons, but the rest will either become squad players or "future talent."
Canales: Future talent is important - but I agree with your implied point that it's taking most college players too long to adjust to the pro game. That's part of the reason that I think the draft will be what pushes the NCAA to finally make some much-needed changes in the college game. NO MORE UNLIMITED SUBS! Honestly, the rookie wall that many players hit simply because they're not used to going 90 minutes game after game is depressingly unnecessary. It handicaps college players not only for MLS, but for games abroad. You think it's coincidence that Charlie Davies had such trouble scoring his first season in Sweden? No way. MLS players going back to their college programs and saying, "Look, it's a serious disadvantage for me to play under one set of rules here and then try to compete on the pro level," will make a huge difference. Then "future talent" at the draft will be a major step closer to being ready on day one of the MLS season.
And to end closer to the main point, since I used the Revs as an example, most of their draft picks have contributed right off the bat. It can happen, and as soon as the college game takes off the blinders of weird NCAA rules, it will happen more often.
Rigg: You make a good point that is at the heart of my argument. The college game doesn't properly prepare these kids, which is why so many struggle to make an impact their first year. In the current setup, these guys come in older than they should be joining clubs and less prepared than they should be.
This is why I think the academy system is so vital to the future of this league. Training guys through their youth and easing them into the team once they hit their late teens has been a invaluable boon to the European game. I know Americans love their college education, but those are absolutely crucial development years pretty much wasted. Something's got to give, and for the quality of the sport, it needs to be college. There's plenty of time to get smart after you retire at 35.
Canales: Tragic logic - I truly think the beauty of the game (and life in general) is that there is more than one way to get to the goal. Look at what college did for Shalrie Joseph or Vedad Ibisevic. That's a successful European and MLS college-developed duo right there.While I'm a big believer in the academy programs, I realize they don't cast a net for every fish. Some develop more slowly then others. If college conforms to the established international rules of the game, I actually think there could be less flops like Memo Gonzalez coming out of the draft, because players can really learn leadership skills and yes, discipline their minds as well as their bodies at that level. An athletic career can be very fleeting. All it takes is a really bad ACL tear to ruin a career, but a college degree is a great way for players to invest in their futures. They don't have to stay all four years, but knocking out a couple of years of university credit can be a great experience, and get one closer to a degree that can be finished via extension or online.
Rigg: College is a big help to surviving in the Western job market, but it's something that can happen whenever. I sat in classes with 40-year-olds and mothers when I went. However, those key development years you can't ever get back. I'm not saying players can't become good with going to college, I'm saying it's harder. Perhaps academies could impliment some sort of mimicry of Bradenton where soccer is the main course with classes on the side. Either way, the 2009 draft, while exciting, won't have much say in who makes the playoffs this year.
Canales: Actually, I didn't think it was all that exciting. Boring suits, for one thing. C'mon soccer players - why look like bankers? Take a cue from the white tux Clint Mathis wore to the 2001 MLS Gala. Go for a little infamy in that spotlight moment. Anyway, I think I can promise you, Zac, that a player in this draft will make a difference for his team in making the playoffs. As a rookie, Clint Dempsey made a difference, Michael Parkhurst made a difference, Jonny Bornstein made a difference. That Mo Edu and Franklin were stuck on crappy teams means that other players let down the squad, not the guys who were drafted and played well. I think what remains an enduring intrigue of the draft is the quality that still exists there and uncertainty of the unknown. They're like wrapped Christmas presents, these players, and the season opens them up and finds out which ones break at first usage or were merely a crappy product wrapped in pretty paper. That guessing game, and the skill in which coaches like Nicol get it right so often, is what makes the draft work and still be relevant to the MLS game.
Counterattack runs every Thursday on Goal.com
Discuss the MLS draft in the Goal.com forums.
Is January's Major League Soccer draft really all that important to a team's chances the rest of the year?
Zac Lee Rigg: No, the draft has a minimal impact on a team's chances in the upcoming year. Take a look at 2008's top 3 picks: Chance Myers, Brek Shea, and Anthony Beltran. Who? Look at 2008's rookie of the year: Sean Franklin was a mainstay for the Galaxy - the worst defense of the year. Sure, it's good for bleeding in some squad players and as chips in deals, but generally a draft won't decide a season.
Andrea Canales: Last year's picks were picks for the future. Shea is still a teenager, for example. Also, you have to admit that as bad as the Galaxy defense was, it would have been worse without Franklin. That they were even battling for the playoffs in the final weeks of last season was attributable to a certain extent to him. I think Omar Gonzalez will help that team this year. It's better, though, to look at the overall success of teams who have drafted carefully. The New England Revolution have build their dynasty of playoff runs on smart choices in the draft.
Rigg: But future seasons isn't the question. A team can't become a playoff squad based on a good draft. If they are already there, they can maintain that level by investing a couple years down the road. But they can't pick up a handful of players who are ready to contribute significantly in the first season. Usually there will be two or three in the entire draft that will get major minutes their rookie seasons, but the rest will either become squad players or "future talent."
Canales: Future talent is important - but I agree with your implied point that it's taking most college players too long to adjust to the pro game. That's part of the reason that I think the draft will be what pushes the NCAA to finally make some much-needed changes in the college game. NO MORE UNLIMITED SUBS! Honestly, the rookie wall that many players hit simply because they're not used to going 90 minutes game after game is depressingly unnecessary. It handicaps college players not only for MLS, but for games abroad. You think it's coincidence that Charlie Davies had such trouble scoring his first season in Sweden? No way. MLS players going back to their college programs and saying, "Look, it's a serious disadvantage for me to play under one set of rules here and then try to compete on the pro level," will make a huge difference. Then "future talent" at the draft will be a major step closer to being ready on day one of the MLS season.
And to end closer to the main point, since I used the Revs as an example, most of their draft picks have contributed right off the bat. It can happen, and as soon as the college game takes off the blinders of weird NCAA rules, it will happen more often.
Rigg: You make a good point that is at the heart of my argument. The college game doesn't properly prepare these kids, which is why so many struggle to make an impact their first year. In the current setup, these guys come in older than they should be joining clubs and less prepared than they should be.
This is why I think the academy system is so vital to the future of this league. Training guys through their youth and easing them into the team once they hit their late teens has been a invaluable boon to the European game. I know Americans love their college education, but those are absolutely crucial development years pretty much wasted. Something's got to give, and for the quality of the sport, it needs to be college. There's plenty of time to get smart after you retire at 35.
Canales: Tragic logic - I truly think the beauty of the game (and life in general) is that there is more than one way to get to the goal. Look at what college did for Shalrie Joseph or Vedad Ibisevic. That's a successful European and MLS college-developed duo right there.While I'm a big believer in the academy programs, I realize they don't cast a net for every fish. Some develop more slowly then others. If college conforms to the established international rules of the game, I actually think there could be less flops like Memo Gonzalez coming out of the draft, because players can really learn leadership skills and yes, discipline their minds as well as their bodies at that level. An athletic career can be very fleeting. All it takes is a really bad ACL tear to ruin a career, but a college degree is a great way for players to invest in their futures. They don't have to stay all four years, but knocking out a couple of years of university credit can be a great experience, and get one closer to a degree that can be finished via extension or online.
Rigg: College is a big help to surviving in the Western job market, but it's something that can happen whenever. I sat in classes with 40-year-olds and mothers when I went. However, those key development years you can't ever get back. I'm not saying players can't become good with going to college, I'm saying it's harder. Perhaps academies could impliment some sort of mimicry of Bradenton where soccer is the main course with classes on the side. Either way, the 2009 draft, while exciting, won't have much say in who makes the playoffs this year.
Canales: Actually, I didn't think it was all that exciting. Boring suits, for one thing. C'mon soccer players - why look like bankers? Take a cue from the white tux Clint Mathis wore to the 2001 MLS Gala. Go for a little infamy in that spotlight moment. Anyway, I think I can promise you, Zac, that a player in this draft will make a difference for his team in making the playoffs. As a rookie, Clint Dempsey made a difference, Michael Parkhurst made a difference, Jonny Bornstein made a difference. That Mo Edu and Franklin were stuck on crappy teams means that other players let down the squad, not the guys who were drafted and played well. I think what remains an enduring intrigue of the draft is the quality that still exists there and uncertainty of the unknown. They're like wrapped Christmas presents, these players, and the season opens them up and finds out which ones break at first usage or were merely a crappy product wrapped in pretty paper. That guessing game, and the skill in which coaches like Nicol get it right so often, is what makes the draft work and still be relevant to the MLS game.
Counterattack runs every Thursday on Goal.com
Discuss the MLS draft in the Goal.com forums.
Thank you for your comment!
Please enter your name
Please enter your location
Please share your comment!
5 Comments
Advertisement
Inside Goal.Com
-
RIGG: Milan striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic is certainly no Mr. February
The Swedish striker traditionally struggles in February. Facing a three-match ban this month, the jinx looks set to continue.
-
DEMPSEY'S DIARY: Playing in the World Cup was the ultimate dream
In his latest diary entry for Goal.com, the U.S. international and Fulham midfielder talks about playing in his first World Cup despite a back injury and what it meant to score.
-
ROGERS: Capello resigns as coach, but the villain is FA chairman Bernstein
Capello and John Terry are far from blameless in the England saga, but the real culprit is the FA chairman.
-
LABIDOU: Is MLS falling behind? The league's new younger direction
With high-profile players like Nicolas Anelka and Luca Toni rejecting MLS for other developing leagues, is the league falling behind its competition?
-
ROSANO: Mexican soccer needs to address referee treatment
Nick Rosano argues that Mexico's continued officiating problems may have less to do with referees themselves and more to do with how they are treated by the federation.
Advertisement
Advertisement