All-Purpose, Never-Ending Soccer Thread

I'd say that MLS is on par to the top half of the Championship. The best players can play on most EPL teams, but the average player can't. On top of that, MLS clubs don't have much depth in terms of talent, so that many lesser starters and most subs would have a hard time getting a game for even bottom of the table teams in the Championship.

 

I'd think about what you said for a second there, Pastor.
Fulham had to scrape to stay up in the Prem this year. Fulham's team includes the best American striker, its most promising offensive midfielder and a 40-cap veteran defender. Put that team in, say, Columbus (don't I wish?) and it would win MLS handily. Now, would they dominate to the point that nobody could touch them? No, because that's not how soccer is. Sometimes a Wigan can bother a Chelsea. But Fulham easily would be the best team in the league.

 

I thought about it. I named Fulham for a reason. They have never beaten an MLS team. Sure, it was two games, but one was at home in the middle of their season and the other was an all-star game. Does Fulham win the league? Well I'm sure they would be a strong favorite and they may even do so. But that isn't a sure bet.

As you should note, my statement was "I would venture to guess that they would be about equal to slightly better."

My point was that it was absurd to state that a mid-table second division team would dominate the MLS on a night-in, night-out basis.

And on that note, I found this article rather entertaining.

 

Someone needs to put a muzzle on Lalas. It's a joke every time he opens his mouth.

 

The Columbus Crew would have a hard time beating Leyton Orient.

 

Lalas comes off like a real idiot in that article, but we're talking about him, which was probably his goal all along.

As for Pastor's entertaining article and the MLS debate, let me say I'm a born-and-raised American college football nut. I've also grown into a weekly EPL viewer on FSC and Setanta. I have traveled outside and across the country for USMNT games and constantly Tivo games from around the world to watch almost every night. I love everything about soccer, which elicits constant (and ignored) jibs from family, friends and coworkers. In other words, I'm the perfect recruit to be an MLS fan. So why can't I seem to get into MLS?

It's not so much that it's viewed as an inferior product (it is, IMHO). That wouldn't matter if I actually cared who won. Fact is, I don't have a rooting interest, and I would pay a lot more attention if there was a team within five hours of where I live in the Southeast. There is an entire soccer-loving section of the country that has been ignored. Amazing that the league can put a team in freakin Canada, but not in Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, etc ...

I don't watch much MLS, but I consider Dempsey to be the best current USMNT player not protecting a goal. He sat the bench for Fulham. Donovan sat the bench in Germany. To think any MLS team (except maybe the Revolution of two years ago) could compete, much less stay up in the EPL is ridiculous. It's like saying an NFL Europe team could make the playoffs in the NFL. Ain't happening.

 

Fact 1: The league's most recent investors were in Toronto, that is why a team exists there.
Fact 2: The league had teams in Florida. They just didn't pan out.

Dempsey went to Fulham halfway through the season. He played sparingly as he was only just getting adapted. But the reality is that when the team absolutely needed a goal at their most desparate time, he was on the pitch. Not just that he was on the pitch, but he scored the goal.

Also, another individual saying "I don't watch MLS but it sucks." Big surprise. This conversation has been had over and over and over again. Hell, it isn't the first time it has shown up in this thread.

I always harken back to a dialog I had with an ex-pat who came over here to coach soccer.
"The MLS sucks."
"I think the teams could compete at the bottom level of the EPL table."
"Hell no."
"Well, the All-Star team just beat Fulham."
"Yeah, well they were out of season."
"So, what is your excuse for an MLS team going over there in winter and beating Fulham on their pitch?"
"Oh, well they must not have played their best players."

Comparing it to NFL Europe? Are you serious? NFL Europe is intentionally a minor league for the NFL. I knew someone that was sent over there by a team. Nobody playing in NFL Europe is really expected to play in the NFL. They do hope that some develop, but aren't really expecting them to. MLS had and currently has players fully capable of going over there at this moment but chooses to not do so.

Additionally, Reyna went from a starting spot (and captaincy) in the EPL to MLS. But, of course, the argument is that he suddenly went from being the captain of a team in the middle of their season to completely sucking to the point that he could only play at an MLS level over night.

Weak arguments that equals: EPL is the best ever because has been around forever, so I won't give anything else a chance.
Simply put: Euro-snobbery.

 

Actually, one of the reasons MLS players are hard to send overseas, especially to Britain, are the stringent Visa requirements. If you're a non-European, you have to have played a certain percentage of your nations internationals over a period of time to get one. That's why Dempsey, Beasley, Onyewu, Bocanegra, McBride et al. can go and Joseph and the rest can't.

The top teams in MLS, New York, Kansas City, New England, Dallas, Houston could compete in the Premier League. They wouldn't win the league, beacause they can't compete as it stands with Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool, because no-one else in England can either. But they are certainly on a par with Fulham, Wigan, Middlesbrough, Aston Villa and the rest.

 

While the top teams in the MLS could ideally compete with mid-to-low table Prem teams, the bottom teams in the MLS are a special kind of suck. Real Salt Lake and Columbus Crew are unwatchable. I mean, isn't your league only as good as its weakest links?

And why are we championing the MLS when an MLS team hasn't won a CONCACAF Champions Cup in 7 years? We aren't even the best league on our block. I believe the Superliga will prove this as well.

MLS would be better off being humble.

 

The reason for that is..........the Mexican League is a better league than people give it credit for.

I will point this out though. If CONCACAF employed the same aways goals rule employed in the Champions League, UEFA Cup and Copa Libertadores, Houston would have advanced to the final against Chivas Guadalajara with a 4-4 tie and two away goals before running out of steam against Pachuca.

In addition, D.C. United beat Chivas at home before losing on aggregate on the road. And neither D.C. or Houston are neccesarily the best in MLS right now.

 

Clearly, you've never watched the Crew and you're just going off the standings.
The Crew are extremely watchable. They play very attractive soccer. They control nearly every game they play.
And they lose.
I can't explain that, but I can say that if you think they're unwatchable, it's because you haven't watched.

 

I will add the caveat that when comparing teams, I'm comparing them with all of their starters. The one thing that salary caps do is prevent depth. MLS teams don't have the depth to compete at the top level, however their starting teams are on par. (Again, I'm leaving out the top teams in those European leagues.)

This is the difference between the national teams of the US and, say, Portugal. If you place their best against our best, you saw already that the US could win. The difference is in the depth. That is where the drop off comes in.

And with that, we move forward! The US plays Canada tomorrow. I am of the belief that this is the Yanks' toughest competition of the tournament. Mexico has played real poorly of late and things just aren't going well for them. I'm sure the Tri will advance to the Finals, but I think the US can handle them, should they get there.