Jump to content

USL teams prosper in CCL, unlike MLS counterparts


Montry

Recommended Posts

MLS teams can sell whatever excuses they want to explain their dismal performances in the CONCACAF Champions League, but it seems most people aren't buying them.

"Maybe the [busy] schedule was a lot for them," Montreal Impact coach John Limniatis said. "But the schedule for us and Puerto Rico was, to some extent, almost inhumane."

The Impact and the Islanders still managed good showings in the USL First Division playoffs while balancing two preliminary and six group-stage matches in the Champions League. Their success -- both clubs already have advanced from the group stage to February's quarterfinals -- has been a boost for the image of the USL First Division, which ranks a rung below MLS on America's soccer ladder.

"I think people have to realize the USL is a much better league than they think," said second-year Puerto Rico coach Colin Clarke, who brings a unique perspective having coached in MLS with Dallas from 2003 to 2006. "I think that league, MLS, has gotten weaker, and ours has gotten stronger."

Were a congested schedule and fatigued players the undoing for MLS? Could the USL squads have better depth?

Did the MLS teams simply not take the Champions League seriously enough, treating it like they usually do early rounds of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup and not using their best players?

Could the USL's style of play, considered more physical and aggressive than that of MLS, have helped Montreal and Puerto Rico against teams from Central America and the Caribbean?

It probably was a combination of all that, Limniatis and Clarke said.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=589625&sec=us&root=us&cc=3888

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article, coming from ESPN. It shows there's at least one guy on this site who knows there's a soccer league called USL. I went through the comments section and the first one posted was that:

Well done to Puerto Rico and Montreal but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The Puerto Rico Islanders' season started in mid-April.

The Houston Dynamo season started in mid-February.

The Puerto Rico Islanders' season ended at the end of October.

The Houston Dynamo season won't end till the end of November...even if they don't advance past the conference semis.

The Puerto Rico Islanders played 41 games, across all competitions, in their season.

If the Dynamo advance to MLS Cup, they will play nearly 60.

The schedules can't even be compared...Houston's is obviously much more taxing. If Montreal's schedule was "inhumane" (I imagine that both Montreal and Puerto Rico have similar lengths to their season), than Houston's schedule must be considered torture.

Again, for the 56th time, that's why no soccer team will ever get some consideration in NA as long as it doesn't play in the MLS. There's always gonna be someone somewhere to find some BS reasons to discredit non-MLS teams, like this dude. [V]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

Good article, coming from ESPN. It shows there's at least one guy on this site who knows there's a soccer league called USL. I went through the comments section and the first one posted was that:

Well done to Puerto Rico and Montreal but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The Puerto Rico Islanders' season started in mid-April.

The Houston Dynamo season started in mid-February.

The Puerto Rico Islanders' season ended at the end of October.

The Houston Dynamo season won't end till the end of November...even if they don't advance past the conference semis.

The Puerto Rico Islanders played 41 games, across all competitions, in their season.

If the Dynamo advance to MLS Cup, they will play nearly 60.

The schedules can't even be compared...Houston's is obviously much more taxing. If Montreal's schedule was "inhumane" (I imagine that both Montreal and Puerto Rico have similar lengths to their season), than Houston's schedule must be considered torture.

Again, for the 56th time, that's why no soccer team will ever get some consideration in NA as long as it doesn't play in the MLS. There's always gonna be someone somewhere to find some BS reasons to discredit non-MLS teams, like this dude. [V]

Pointing out that Houston will play 20 more games than either Montreal or Puerto Rico (assuming those stats are correct) is far from BS.

Facts are facts. Whether you feel they discredit anyone is your interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Pointing out that Houston will play 20 more games than either Montreal or Puerto Rico (assuming those stats are correct) is far from BS.

Facts are facts. Whether you feel they discredit anyone is your interpretation.

I believe Montreal's total for the year is 44 (30 regular season + 4 Canadian Championship + 6 CCL + 4 USL Playoffs), and spread over a schedule which, as the commenter points out, was 3 months shorter, makes for a schedule that is just as congested.

The problem is MLS rules that make having a deep roster a near impossibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by jonovision

I believe Montreal's total for the year is 44 (30 regular season + 4 Canadian Championship + 6 CCL + 4 USL Playoffs), and spread over a schedule which, as the commenter points out, was 3 months shorter, makes for a schedule that is just as congested.

The problem is MLS rules that make having a deep roster a near impossibility.

that would be 46...2 more games in the CCL preliminary round againt Real Esteli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Pointing out that Houston will play 20 more games than either Montreal or Puerto Rico (assuming those stats are correct) is far from BS.

Facts are facts. Whether you feel they discredit anyone is your interpretation.

Well, those stats ARE NOT correct and that's why this is all BS. Mmmmmm, where do I start...

1) Here's a link to Houston's schedule ON THEIR WEBSITE:

http://web.mlsnet.com/schedule/scoreboard/season.jsp?team=t200

w/o friendlies</u>: 50 or 52* GP in 281 days (from Feb. 20 to Nov. 26) = 1 game / 5.62 or 5.40* days

w/ friendlies</u>: 55 GP in 288 days (from Feb. 13 to Nov. 26) = 1 game / 5.24 days

*If they reach the MLS Cup Final

Note: 2 of the games that were NOT COUNTED AS FRIENDLIES were "Pan-Pacific Championship" games, another Mickey Mouse tournament set in place this year by the MLS. It is supposed to involve the champs of Australia's A-League (but actually it was the 4th (!!!) ranked team that participated because of a scheduling conflict), the champs of Japan's J.League and 2 other teams: MLS cup winners and Superliga winners, but the latter's spot was taken by the Galaxy (JOKE !!!) because Pachuca was just not interested in participating in such a Mickey Mouse tournament (in Hawaii !!!!).

2) Here's a link to Montreal's schedule ON THEIR WEBSITE:

http://www.montrealimpact.com/Statistics/Calendar.aspx?language=EN

w/o friendlies</u>: 46 GP in 200 days (from Apr. 12 to Oct. 28) = 1 game / 4.35 days

w/ friendlies</u>: 54 GP in 279 days (from Feb. 13 to Oct. 28) = 1 game / 5.17 days

Note: They played 3 friendlies against clubs in Italy (Jan. 24, 30 and 31), 3 against clubs in Portugal (Feb. 21, 26 and 27), 1 against Lynn University in Florida (Mar. 22) and 1 against Honduras' NT (Mar. 24, which they won 3-1 BTW). So it's not like they only started to play on April 12. And I also didn't count the game vs the Attak.

Finally, I calculated this rate for every MLS and USL team that played in the CCL and Superliga taking only OFFICIAL GP (not friendlies) into account: regular season games, playoffs, CCC, CCL, Open Cup and Superliga (and even PPC for Houston). For PR, I added the CFU Club Championship 2-leg 3rd place series they played in May against San Juan Jabloteh that sealed their place in the CCL. Here's the results in order:

1) Impact: 1 game / 4.35 days

2) Islanders: 1 game / 4.56 days

3) DCU: 1 game / 4.94 days

4) Revolution: 1 game / 5.31 days

5) Dynamo: 1 game / 5.62 or 5.40* days

6) Chivas: 1 game / 5.89 or 5.98* days

Conclusions</u>

1) When the guy who posted on ESPN.com says: The schedules can't even be compared...Houston's is obviously</u> much more taxing. If Montreal's schedule was "inhumane" (I imagine that both Montreal and Puerto Rico have similar lengths to their season), than Houston's schedule must be considered torture., that is, actually, BULLSH*T.

2) The Impact played more games than Chivas and NE, and they played as many games as DCU, but still managed to go further than them all. Actually, Houston played more games and they still have a chance to reach the QF. So I don't give a sh*t about any "insane schedule" excuse like this gem from the NE Rev head coach:

"We had an impossible task tonight," New England coach Steve Nicol told the Boston Herald after a 2-1 loss at Joe Public in its first qualifying match Aug. 26. "We showed our heart tonight. It had nothing to do with our football. What are you supposed to say when they don't have it in their legs?" [xx(] [xx(] [xx(]

Actually, MTL played 18 games in 46 days from Aug. 24 to Oct. 8. It's one game every 2.56 days, so what was he complaining about ???

3) MTL = 6.9 games a month for 6½ months. HOU = 5.3 games a month for 8½ months. Simple math: 4 or 6 more games than MTL for Houston (not 20), but spread over 2 more months !!! How's Houston's schedule more difficult than Montreal's ???

4) Oh, and yes, that's my interpretation... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I don't think the gap is THAT big, in some cases there is none. But at the end of the day money doesn't lie, MLS has more and for that reason i attracting some of the USL's best playrs. Sure USL can pay you more if your not a top player, but if your comparing first 11s, MLS is going to be better providing the team is properly run, because they can spend way more and the salary difference is only going up from here.

On top of that, if we're going to talk about USL vs. MLS, the best measure is the US Open Cup.

Results since the pro-era:

1995

Details Richmond Kickers El Paso Patriots

1996

Details D.C. United Rochester Rhinos

1997

Details Dallas Burn D.C. United

1998

Details Chicago Fire Columbus Crew

1999

Details Rochester Rhinos Colorado Rapids

2000

Details Chicago Fire Miami Fusion

2001

Details Los Angeles Galaxy New England Revolution

2002

Details Columbus Crew Los Angeles Galaxy

2003

Details Chicago Fire MetroStars

2004

Details Kansas City Wizards Chicago Fire

2005

Details Los Angeles Galaxy FC Dallas

2006

Details Chicago Fire Los Angeles Galaxy

2007

Details New England Revolution FC Dallas

2008

Details D.C. United Charleston Battery

First team is the winner, second team is the runner up. USL 2/14 champs, represented 5/28 times overall in the finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think i would quite look at it that way. One appearence could just as easily be an anomaly as an actual trend. On top of that if we're comparing early / late: USL is represented 4x as much in the first half of the sample (95-01), than the 2nd half (02 - 09).

Another point is that following each time a USL team made the finals, the length of time it took a USL team to re-appear increased: It starts with 1 year (or no gap), jumps to three, and then nine years before we way a team re-appear this year.

This would tend to suggest the gap widened (or was created) as opposed to closed over time. Now if we actually saw another USL team appear next year or the year after, that would start to suggest the trend is starting to reverse.

Edit: sorry i adjusted a few numbers above, as my ability to add seems to be severly affected by being hungover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

Unlike MLS teams, you've come up with a good excuse for your poor showing :D

Seriously, I wasn't looking for another MLS vs USL debate in terms of talent, money or whatever. I just intended to show you all (on the MLS board [}:)]) that MLS teams CAN'T complain about their schedule. Many pro-MLS fans (like the one in my example) are always looking at new BS ways of bashing the USL. There's just no need in that. That's the case even more when you actually bring BS arguments like this dude did.

Bottom line is, I agree that both leagues are good. That's just a bad habit MLS fans have to always state it's the best of the best. This league has as much Mickey Mouse aspects as the USL. But USL teams NEVER COMPLAIN. When MLS teams lose against USL teams, 99.9 % of the time they say that's because they "weren't really well prepared bacause of their 'hectic' schedule", that they "could have used all of their starters but have some more 'important games' coming up" and all and all. If you don't take the Open Cup or the Voyageurs Cup seriously, and the CCL as well, THEN THAT'S JUST YOUR F*CKING PROBLEM and grow up a bit.

Oh, and sure, in the USL you can have a roster with more depth, that's just one of the aspects where the USL looks better than MLS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.

Biologist, your work calculating schedules is appreciated, good job. And interesting too.

I suppose you would have to factor in a couple of more things, like travel miles, size of roster, players used over the season, and even how many subs you can do in a game.

In any case, any team playing twice a week is playing like a European team in UEFA Cup or Champions and their league cup, which is a lot. I think it has to be respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. Feedback is also appreciated.

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I suppose you would have to factor in a couple of more things, like travel miles, size of roster, players used over the season, and even how many subs you can do in a game.

Travelwise, I think it's safe to say both teams had an almost equally hardcore schedule. Look at Montreal's final 9 games:

1) In Montreal

2) Then all the way to the west coast in Seattle

3) Then back east in Montreal

4) Then to Central America in Tegucigalpa, Honduras

5) Then back home in Montreal

6) Then back to the west coast in Vancouver

7) Then back east and all the way south to the Lesser Antilles in Port-of-Spain, T&T

8) Then back home again in Montreal

9) And finally headed south again to Cancun, Mexico

Draw your own conclusions.

For the rosters comparison, Houston has 28 players on their full roster. I wasn't sure if they're all eligible on game day. I checked on mlsnet.com and yes they are:

http://web.mlsnet.com/about/league.jsp?section=regulations&content=overview

The full roster shall exceed no more than 28 total players: 18 players on the Senior Roster and no more than 10 players on the Developmental Roster. All 28 players are eligible for selection as part of the game-day squad during the regular season and playoffs.

Montreal has 26 players on their full roster. We can consider Surprenant and Uwimana as developmental players. So Montreal has an edge in terms of senior players (I said it in my previous post), but Houston can choose between 28 players come game time, 2 more than Montreal. So I don't think USL teams have that much of an edge. If Houston doesn't want to use them all, that's their problem, cause Montreal used all of their 26 players, even Surprenant and Uwimana. The main difference resides in the number of subs possible: 3 in MLS vs 5 in the USL. Sure it helps, but still...

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

In any case, any team playing twice a week is playing like a European team in UEFA Cup or Champions and their league cup, which is a lot. I think it has to be respected.

Yes it has to be. I mean, I agree Houston's schedule is hardcore too, but so is Man U's when they play for the PL championsip, the FA Cup, the League Cup and the Champions League, while they also have internationals called up. It's just the way soccer is when you are good enough to compete in more than one championship. But I also agree on a reform in scheduling in both USL & MLS cause sometimes, I must admit it's simply too much (like 4 games in the same week). But MLS fans, remember that USL's schedule ain't a piece of cake for its teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

....in the last 9 years, the USL has been represented only once (this year). which adds some credence to the USL closing the gap in the last few years but certainly in the naughties it would seem the MLS has dominated.

Exactly. One year does not make a trend. There are so many other factors ( mostly off the pitch) to consider when you look at long term strenght on the pitch and those factors do not support the fact that there is parity or even superior strenght in USL. Simply, you need to be able to pay for talent and quality and, who is in a better position when you look at it in that way.

Of course, in any given year, anything can happen. That, doesn't diminish the achievement of the USL sides in CCL, we are all happy from them. However Millwall, not too long ago, played in UEFA cup. But no one is running around saying that the CCC stronger that the EPL.

If the success of the current USL teams was evidence of something more permanent, then why the hell are there four teams willing to fork out 40-50 mill to join the MLS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

Exactly. One year does not make a trend. There are so many other factors ( mostly off the pitch) to consider when you look at long term strenght on the pitch and those factors do not support the fact that there is parity or even superior strenght in USL. Simply, you need to be able to pay for talent and quality and, who is in a better position when you look at it in that way.

Of course, in any given year, anything can happen. That, doesn't diminish the achievement of the USL sides in CCL, we are all happy from them. However Millwall, not too long ago, played in UEFA cup. But no one is running around saying that the CCC stronger that the EPL.

Did someone on the board stated USL teams are better overall than MLS teams ? You should read the posts correctly instead of being defensive. There's way more MLS fans who say USL's quality of play on the field is just crap than USL fans who say the same about MLS. The dude I talked about in my previous posts is a good example of guys trying to look sympathetic towards the Impact's achievements so far, while clearly devaluing them at the same time, be it by means of irrelevant or BS arguments.

Nobody said USL as an ORGANIZATION is superior to MLS. BUT USL as a PRODUCT ON THE FIELD (I'm not talking about quality of star players), most of the time, can match the MLS, especially in terms of entertaiment. If you take into account every game that occured between MLS & USL teams, you can say what you want except "It's so obvious there's not even an ounce of parity between the leagues". C'mon...

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

If the success of the current USL teams was evidence of something more permanent, then why the hell are there four teams willing to fork out 40-50 mill to join the MLS?

Because of the hype and the $$$ associated with it. What came first, the egg or the hen ? That's the same question here. Is the money bringing the hype or the hype bringing the money ? The Impact, as a club, wants more attention and more hype so they can be well-recognized as an organization and fill a 20K seater instead of a 13K. Soooooo simple.

If a movie starring Lindsay Lohan ranks #1 at the box-office and an other one starring Philipp Seymour Hoffman ranks #9, does that mean Lohan's movie is obviously and without a doubt the best of the two ? Can it be the producers' $$$ that creates all this hype ? Can it be just that same hype that makes this movie grossing more $$$ ? Is Requiem for a Dream a lame movie because it had poor box-office numbers ?

Now replace Lohan with Beckham and producers with owners. What do you get ?

MLS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

If a movie starring Lindsay Lohan ranks #1 at the box-office and an other one starring Philipp Seymour Hoffman ranks #9, does that mean Lohan's movie is obviously and without a doubt the best of the two ? Can it be the producers' $$$ that creates all this hype ? Can it be just that same hype that makes this movie grossing more $$$ ? Is Requiem for a Dream a lame movie because it had poor box-office numbers ?

Now replace Lohan with Beckham and producers with owners. What do you get ?

MLS.

So basically you're saying that MLS is far crappier, yet much richer and more popular.

I'd try another analogy, you've completely missed the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

So basically you're saying that MLS is far crappier, yet much richer and more popular.

I'd try another analogy, you've completely missed the mark.

[:0] Where did I say Lohan's movies were crap ?

Much richer ? Yes I said so.

More popular ? Yes I said so.

MLS is "far crappier" ? Where did you learn to read ? From now, read slowly so you can understand what I'm saying: More hype and more $$$ doesn't mean that it is OBVIOUSLY better like many, many, many, (did I say many ?) MLS fans like to say (Free kick ?). I gave an EXAMPLE to show what I said HAPPENS in real life. Still disagree ?

MLS AIN'T FAR CRAPPIER (otherwise, why would I want my team to play in this league ?). But USL's quality of play ain't crappier just because expansion fees are lower too. If I was an actor, I'd like to be in Hollywood instead of making movies locally in order to get more famous and make more $$$, but not necessarily in order to make "far better movies because they got more hype and $$$". That's what the Impact & the Caps are willing to do: make a move to Hollywood. But "low-budget movie" doesn't mean at all "OBVIOUSLY inferior" in overall quality and entertainment-wise.

Is it clear enough ?

EDIT: Hey, what about my first post that also had "completely miss the mark" ???? It looks like you're slower on the trigger when it comes to acknowledge I was right... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

[:0] Where did I say Lohan's movies were crap ?

Much richer ? Yes I said so.

More popular ? Yes I said so.

MLS is "far crappier" ? Where did you learn to read ? From now, read slowly so you can understand what I'm saying: More hype and more $$$ doesn't mean that it is OBVIOUSLY better like many, many, many, (did I say many ?) MLS fans like to say (Free kick ?). I gave an EXAMPLE to show what I said HAPPENS in real life. Still disagree ?

MLS AIN'T FAR CRAPPIER (otherwise, why would I want my team to play in this league ?). But USL's quality of play ain't crappier just because expansion fees are lower too. If I was an actor, I'd like to be in Hollywood instead of making movies locally in order to get more famous and make more $$$, but not necessarily in order to make "far better movies because they got more hype and $$$". That's what the Impact & the Caps are willing to do: make a move to Hollywood. But "low-budget movie" doesn't mean at all "OBVIOUSLY inferior" in overall quality and entertainment-wise.

Is it clear enough ?

EDIT: Hey, what about my first post that also had "completely miss the mark" ???? It looks like you're slower on the trigger when it comes to acknowledge I was right... :(

I'm sorry, but when you compare MLS to Lindsay Lohan, and the USL to Philip Seymour Hoffman, then you are most definitely making a statement about the relative quality of the two leagues. Whether you mean to or not.

So yes, you missed the mark. And no, I wasn't any slower on the trigger in responding to either of your posts. I respond when I see them and if I feel they merit a response, just like I do with every other post I read here and on other boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

Am I the only one to understand that I compared MLS to the movie Lindsay Lohan plays in, not herself ? I said "replace Lohan with Beckham", not "replace Lohan with MLS", IN TERMS OF STARDOM, NOT QUALITY/TALENT/WHATEVER.

Man, you focus on 5% of what I said. What about the rest ?

Anyway, all of this comes from the post in the "comments" section of ESPN about which schedule is worse, MLS' or USL's ? I just tried to illustrate what I think about it. I just believe there's more parity between the league than you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to use analogies from the movie industry then this one applies just as well to this topic:

Having a bigger budget doesn't guarantee that you will produce a better movie than someone with a smaller budget. But, the production with the bigger budget will produced a better movie most of the time. Or, its much harder to make a successfull production with a comoarably smaller budget. But it doen't mean that every now and then a low budget film will be very and win the big award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...