Montry Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 "It seems clear that the best league outside Europe is no longer the Brazilian or the Argentine. It is the Mexican." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_football/3512028.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 What does the BBC know about South, Central or North American soccer? They very rarely cover it at all. And this article is very superficial. You can't determine which league is better in this manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Oranje Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Not exactly clear... Cruzeiro is also currently ranked 3rd in its State Championship behind one team that barely survived relegation in B-level Brazil Championship in 2003 Also a team called America. Sao Caetano has not been playing well either. It barely reached the second round of the Sao Paulo State Championship this past weekend. So I wouldn't say having difficulty in the Libertadores in the early rounds as being clear at all. This is round robin yet. Wait til the chips are down.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 quote:Originally posted by DJT What does the BBC know about South, Central or North American soccer? They very rarely cover it at all. And this article is very superficial. You can't determine which league is better in this manner. Furthermore, the first place you start when judging a league is the strenght of its national side. Afterall, thats where the bulk of the players in the league will come from. Looking back at past WC's to as far as I can remember, Mexico has not proven to me that they belong in that upper tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 The national team a good judgement of the League ??? I didn't know the Danish league was so strong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 quote:Originally posted by DJT What does the BBC know about South, Central or North American soccer? They very rarely cover it at all. And this article is very superficial. You can't determine which league is better in this manner. Exactly! They don't know jack about S. American football! Pick-up any British newspaper or sports magazine and you'll see that the Conference League gets more coverage than La Liga and Serie A put together! S.America gets next to no coverage! Apparently the author thinks that almost beating Argentine and Brazilian teams means you are better than Argentine and Brazilian teams. [)] And needless to say he didn't mention the fact that when the Copa Lib. began the Mexican league was in midseason, while the Argentine League was still in their long summer break. The only good point he made was that Mexico did not send their best teams. I thought it was pretty sneaky of COMMEBOL not to invite Mexico's two best teams but instead force them to play an interliga tournament to determine which teams Mexico will send (while COMMEBOL rakes in the money made off that tourney for themselves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montry Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 I note some anger towards Mexico on your reposes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy The national team a good judgement of the League ??? I didn't know the Danish league was so strong... Well I don't see Denmark in any groups for Euro 2004 this summer. Aside from a surprising run in the Euro championships in 1992 ( I think it was 92) and a good and very entertaining performance at WC 1986, you can't say that the danes have been world beaters. I am not saying that there aren't examples out there to counter my point that the National teams are a good barometre of the strenght of domestic league. But you could have come up with a better example. Or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Free kick But you could have come up with a better example. Or no. czech republic, argentina, holland, spain, brazil, england, ireland,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Well I don't see Denmark in any groups for Euro 2004 this summer. Aside from a surprising run in the Euro championships in 1992 ( I think it was 92) and a good and very entertaining performance at WC 1986, you can't say that the danes have been world beaters. I am not saying that there aren't examples out there to counter my point that the National teams are a good barometre of the strenght of domestic league. But you could have come up with a better example. Or no. Denmark is at Euro 2004 in Portugal in June, in Group C with Sweden, Bulgaria, and Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crampton Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 So the BBC thinks that the Mexican league is the best in the Americas? Clearly they've never watched any action in the CPSL! Mexican league... pah! Next thing you know they'll "decide" that Argentina deserves that higher ranking than Canada. When have the Argies ever won anything? Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonfan Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 haha Mike ur the man!! How good is the MLS, what ranking would u give it out of the world for league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Montry I note some anger towards Mexico on your reposes . Actually I agree that the Mexican league could be the strongest, but the way the author of that article tries to proove it is all wrong! As for MLS, I would say they have a long-way to go to reach the level of the Trinidad & Tobago and Costa Rican leagues based on results of the Concacaf Champions Cup last week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 quote:Originally posted by DJT What does the BBC know about South, Central or North American soccer? They very rarely cover it at all. And this article is very superficial. You can't determine which league is better in this manner. Well, what does BBC Sport (as opposed to BBC News, which has great international coverage) know about European football? Title of sole article on Spanish Cup Final: "Beckham misses out on a cup". The wogs begin at Calais. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Yank Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Actually I agree that the Mexican league could be the strongest, but the way the author of that article tries to proove it is all wrong! As for MLS, I would say they have a long-way to go to reach the level of the Trinidad & Tobago and Costa Rican leagues based on results of the Concacaf Champions Cup last week! The Fire pulled back 4 goals to take the seris. Anyone who knows anything about soccer knows why MLS teams tend to struggle in the early rounds of this tournament. Teams in preseason form going against those in mid season form. In Chicago's case they were using 6 new starters, yet still managed to pull it together to take the final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Yank Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I agree that the Mexican League is the America's best league. The best Brazilian and Argentinian teams are better than the best Mexican teams, but top to bottom the MFL is stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank The Fire pulled back 4 goals to take the seris. Anyone who knows anything about soccer knows why MLS teams tend to struggle in the early rounds of this tournament. Teams in preseason form going against those in mid season form. In Chicago's case they were using 6 new starters, yet still managed to pull it together to take the final. But that's MLS' problem and can't be used as an excuse! All they have to do is begin their season a month earlier. If you ask yourself why MLS does not begin their season earlier you'll arrive at the MAIN reason why MLS teams get slaughtered in this competition (they don't care)! Starting the season a month sooner would be good for many other reasons too (such as having the time to take a mid-season break - especially on World Cup and Gold Cup years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.T. Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Soccer in New England/New Jersey/Chicago in March??? That means preseason in February. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 quote:Originally posted by L.T. Soccer in New England/New Jersey/Chicago in March??? That means preseason in February. Ugh. Nowhere is it written that they have to play their pre-season in their home stadium? In fact, weren't most teams pre-season in Spain this year? Maybe they could have their pre-season in the Caribbean if they really cared about the Concacaf Champions Cup. Of course, then San Jose wouldn't have an excuse when they lose 3-1 on aggregate to the 3rd-best Costa Rican team ... and that's why the change will never happen! As for the regular season: if the championship game is in the middle of November, why can't a regular season game occur in the middle of March? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.