I don't think any would consider any Eastern European league to be better than MLS. But Slavia Prague might have better youth talent than many MLS teams.
Why do people keep making these stupid arguments. Isnt there a thread we people want to debate the quality of leagues? If you want to exaggerate the quality of MLS, there is whole forum where people would probably love it. These posts in YA are just annoying. MLS is flawed league and has been a bad league at developing american players. I'd guess the eastern european leagues are much more technical and a higher level tactically, especially when you exclude the DP outliers like Zlatan and Rooney. That Czech side lost to top 6 EPL side 5-3. I only caught a few mins and they didnt look bad. The argument about that team losing to Chelsea means anything in terms of league falls apart when you consider MLS cup champions just lost 3-1 to 5th place team in the Apertura and 3rd place in the Clausura and the "Supporters Shield" winner got blown out 6-2 by the 4th A/13th C team. Why dont we just talk about CP?
CP is the smartest 20 yo attacking player the US has ever had. That must make the rest of the past kids quite stupid.
It seems like just yesterday we were watching his highlight tape in BVB winter preseason against Jeongbuck Motors FC
There is difference between intelligence and mental discipline . Pulisic is extremely intelligent, you can realize this listening to him speak. He just needs to calm down and apply that intelligence on the field instead of trying to prove his worth through extra effort.
Right, that's kind of my point. A one-year aberration doesn't change how the world perceives a league.
So Chelsea is in the best league in the world. They would dismantle any and every MLS club just as bad or worse. But MLS apologists would have you believe some bizarre transitive argument to make them feel goodsy like.
That'd probably happen if Chelsea played Dortmund as well right now. Don't forget BVB got brushed aside by Tottenham, who just made it to the UCL semis for the first time ever. Of course we also saw that Bayern can steamroll them if they put in anything close to full effort in (and of course, Bayern themselves have done jack in Europe). The English league is very strong right now, particularly the top teams, but more importantly German clubs are losing its best talent and not really replacing it with proven assets from top leagues, but instead bringing in young players to sell off later. Look at the talent actually coming IN to the league? Witsel in from the Chinese Super League? Outside of Bayern, the Bundesliga is starting to look a lot like Eredivisie, particularly the level of defending. Some of the Dortmund's defending against Bayern was cartoonish, but that's an outcome of becoming such a youth-oriented league.
Well the Slavs had a nice almost-comeback, but Chelski had taken its foot off the pedal. For all the crisis and the impending ban, they look like a team where Puli can do his thing.
It seems to be that way. CHO has been getting lots of minutes as of late. He'll probably be starting next season.
Wrong. Intelligence is acquired through a life learning process. Continued to educate yourself, study films, study your opponents, learn from your failures. You think Brady and Manning become the greatest quarterbacks in the game by simply being born smart? They're 2 of the individuals that possess the greatest work ethics. It is well documented.
LITERALLY NOBODY THINKS THIS. WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? LETS START POSTING BETTER THAN “our country’s domestic league fans think F***ing Chelsea wouldn’t make mls playoffs”
It is a combination of factors. Everyone has a ceiling on his potential; most people never maximize it.
That is learning. It's very different from pure intelligence. When you have someone who takes a long time to learn, the safe bet is that they are not particularly smart. Still, if they keep doing it, eventually they will learn. But that's just experience, not brains. Truth is, there is a lot of debate over it, much of it political. It's a hot topic button, and often for the wrong reasons (basically, people from diverse groups claiming biological superiority over others based on a higher score in a certain type of intelligence). However, I'm a "genetic determinist" so to me, it's a clear-cut issue. The problem is that people tend to define "intelligence" as "that which I and my own tend to do well." Hence the political bent to it. Back to Puli, since his business is soccer, and time and again he shows repeated failings in reading what others around are doing (reason why his stats fail to climb), I think "soccer IQ" (the part of intelligence applied to this particular game) is his bottleneck.
The experts on intelligence here don't all sound particularly smart, but if they keep doing it long enough... maybe...
We are waiting for your intelligent analysis about the player--instead of the poster--so please provide.
Pulisic? Is he smart? Lemme see... What metric do you prefer? Income? Genius Choosing a career that utilizes his strengths? Genius Making personal decisions that maximize opportunity? Genius Able to manage/analyze risk/reward scenarios to maximize outcomes? Genius Able to pick up some German despite not being a native speaker? Smart Able to handle PR/Public speaking responsibilities? Above average intelligence. Choice in tats? Average to dim. EQ? Dunno - haven't spent any time with him. But still being tight with his family and some US youth soccer friends is often a reasonable tell. Did I miss anything?
Yes, you missed the player's qualities related to the game of soccer. You are also missing my point, which is that Sancho will be the next dominant superstar. The fact that Sancho is one of the best player's of his generation, IQ-wise, doesn't necessarily mean that Pulisic is the worst of the worst.
Puli is fine, but hopefully the people in Chelsea don't expect him to do all the adapting and rather use a system where he fits.