I suggest you tune in on Wednesday when they get their re-match against Real Madrid. They took Real to extra time in the 2016 CWC final, and they did it with a starting eleven of only Japanese players. You are forgetting the Galaxy also has a CONCACAF title.
Sounds like neutral ground to me. What is your point? The facts are the following. Liga MX has now represented CONCACAF 13 times since the competition format changed in 2005. In six of those CWC editions it failed to progress beyond the quarterfinal stage. Liga MX has lost to clubs from the following countries outside Europe and South America: - Egypt - Tunisia - Japan - South Korea - DR Congo - Morocco - New Zealand - China Yes, they have played (host) domestic teams on some occasions. But the most embarrassing defeat to (semi-professional) Auckland City happened in Morocco. Trying to explain away the poor record with just location is rather convenient. May I offer the following explanation? The Asian elite (and African elite in the past) are just as strong as Mexico's clubs. A shocking notion I know.
May seem like it but from someone that has traveled in both directions, it is not. Having the tournament is Southeast Asia or Middle East which is near South West Asia is a big disadvantage to teams in the Americas. That said, I'm not suggesting there is a huge gap between Mexican teams and Japanese teams. To the contrary, I think the J-League, Liga MX and MLS are at similar levels. So when teams of similar levels play, other factors such as travel and timing of competition ( is one team in mid-season form while other are in pre-season or banged up at the end of a long season) make a big difference in results.
To add to my point in 2 of the past 8 years, the South American sides have failed to make it into the final while one team from Morocco and one team from the Congo have done so. Does anyone want to use these results to suggest the African club soccer is at a similar level to Brazilian club soccer?
One thing I always think about is that the CWC only provides one or two games per year per country, so it's not gonna create a great source of statistics, even with 13 years in the books now. Any current year is gonna be over-emphasized versus previous years, too. It's a shame there aren't more inter-confederation club games to give a more even view. I don't want to support Mexican clubs much, but at least when they participated in the Copa Libertadores, you almost always saw at least one win their group and advance at least once in the knockout stages - three times, a Mexican team even reached the final. They never won the competition, but that's somewhat expected. Point is, in that competition, you had multiples teams per country and a large number of games, so you could confidently draw the conclusion that Mexican teams, while not quite good enough to go all the way, were definitely competitive. And although the CCL has been slowly watered down over the years, I think you can similarly say that MLS is competitive versus LigaMX - so close, but not quite close enough to get that title yet. I don't think Mexican troubles in the CCL (which, as I said earlier, are probably a bit overblown) are a sign that MLS is too incredibly far down the ladder of "best leagues in the world".
How would you guys compare last year TFC to Atlanta? Can Atlanta replicate last year, go a step further and win?
Nobody knows because their roster is in flux, and their coach is leaving. Atlanta untied with the same roster as this season, with Tata at the helm is the best team in MLS history.
Better team. League is rapidly improving. On the other hand Atlanta will be at a big disadvantage. All MLS teams are in pre-season, but Atlanta will be doing so with a new coach. I think Toronto, Red Bulls and KC might be better prepared. Don't think Houston has the same talent level.
Seems fair to me. I just have a hard time anointing a team that blew the Supporters Shield on the last day and got knocked out of the Open Cup, at home by the Fire, the best team in league history. If they can win the CCL though, that would outweigh their 2018 shortcomings.
Of course they might not have the same team, and certainly won't have the same coach, so failure to win might say little about their team the previous year.
Did River plate fly straight from Madrid to the ME? River has to be there on fumes after the C. Libertadores stuff, maybe they are on a high or maybe they are tired. Chivas had a shit team.
Atlanta was fun, and a great team, but 2017 Toronto was the "best" MLS team I've ever seen. There was no real doubt last year. Until the game started unfolding, I wouldn't have been shocked to see Portland win, and I really think Kansas City would've troubled Atlanta this year. But last year, Toronto was really dominant. A full season masterclass.
Yes, they have been in the country since December 12. Unfortunately they won't have as many traveling supporters as in 2015 - given lack of planning time. Probably less than 5,000. In Japan they had about 15,000. Oh well, still look forward to the stadium atmosphere tomorrow.
Do you think these could help Atlanta in the CCL relative to the Red Bulls (or other northern MLS clubs)? 1. Atlanta is farther south, so they have shorter travel. 2. The Red Bulls could have bad weather in February for an 8:00 P.M. game combined with an opponent from the Dominican Republic cause lower attendance. Weather is not a problem for Atlanta's fans.
People kept waiting for Toronto to turn it around all season but they never did. People thought Orlando was going to be a contender because they brought in a lot of talented players from within the league but they were awful. 2018 was a much stronger league. Soccer is a weak link game and adding over 15% payroll per team makes a big difference especially when you consider the top 20 players took up about 1/3 of the salary in 2017 and made about the same as the top 20 did in 2018. Having a lot more young players with USL makes a difference as well.