I have always said it , If you ONLY see any top 20 team regularly play any other team/league will look bad. Everybody loves seeing ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool et all. But I guess not much people watch Burnley vs WBA. You spend a better time going to your local games. I know is a little exagerated , but it is mostly true.
Oh my. This. Serie A, in general, is some of the most unwatchable, eye-gouging, soccer on the planet. At the top, certainly not, but any game at random, definitely. And only a few La Liga games are worth watching. Seeing Barcelona or one of the Madrids run rampant over the bottom half of the table is for folks that enjoy exhibition games. I mean, I like the Harlem Globetrotters, but I don't want a full season's worth.
I don't agree about the Serie A, and random Bundesliga games are awesome. And while snobs will pu-pu bottom of the table EPL games, those are still really fun games to watch, and with the crazy wealth of the league increasingly involve magnificently talented players.
I left the Bundesliga out of it on purpose. Of the big European leagues, I find a random Bundesliga game more watchable than the others.
But something very something similar can be said of MLS. Many games are pretty sad affairs to watch. Far better than they used to be, certainly, but not enthralling entertainment. The difference, of course, is that we can watch our local clubs compete, which should inject an emotional shot into any match. Backtracking a bit, though, and pushing back hard against those who argue that MLS isn't qualitatively superior to its earlier incarnations, it just is. I mean, in those early years, passing was horrific; the ball was constantly going into touch. Any shot from distance was more likely to go out for a throw-in than test the goalkeeper. There are truly exciting games in MLS now, every week. Highlight goals that are worthy of the term. Substantial technical skill on display (not just "grit"). Great stadium atmospheres that come across on TV. But there are also a lot of ho-hum contests populating a regular season where individual games often feel as though they don't mean as much as they should. At least we still have a semblance of parity in the league that gives fans of most teams a legitimate reason to feel reasonably optimistic about this time each year. It also means that the ho-hum contests don't always involve the same resource-challenged, also-rans each season; the great games don't always involve the same few teams.
I feel that the TV companies job to create a narrative around every match. NBC do an excellent job with the Premier League. I watched 400+ games in all 4 divisions, at 70+ stadiums in England live and there are plenty of humdrun games, even one where the result "matters". But NBC will build a narrative around the likes of Bournemouth vs. Everton, that gives you a reason to watch. Meanwhile Fox will dive straight into a game, without even showing the standings There's rarely any talk of tactics, merely talking heads spouting opinions. It's as if MLS throws 22 players onto a pitch with zero at stake. Its very annoying.
Some people, and I'm talking American soccer fans, believe that MLS HQ allocates players to teams, turning every game into a league showpiece.
If some people who believed this really paid attention, they'd realize that if it were true NY and Chicago would have a hell of a lot more MLS Cups than they do. (Caveat, in the first 5 or so years of the league it was true)
What do you mean?? Don't you think that the Americans who have been Chelsea fans since before Abramovic (yeah, right) get an emotional shot at seeing their West London neighborhood club play??
I might have missed it, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the quality of MLS hasn't increased significantly. It's more that this doesn't necessarily translate into significantly increased revenues. On one hand, I agree with this. But I had no idea what CCL was until I became a fan of MLS, and I would imagine the majority of american sports fans have no idea what CCL is. Now is it possible that if MLS teams reach Liga MX teams in parity it could become a bigger deal to the point where ESPN portrays it as a big deal? Sure. I think the US Men's team doing well is probably the best way to get casual fans to pay more attention to soccer.
Maybe it is cultural, I find random La Liga games more watchable that Bundesliga, and I have tried to get into Bundesliga. I do agree that R.M/Barca vs bottom half of the table teams are 99% of the time unwatchable if you want to see good competitive soccer.
The fact you wrote that while both teams were 5 points clear of 3rd place proves just how dominant they are.
Yeah, that's a pretty distorted reality when only slightly ahead of the pack isn't "running rampant". It's not like they're currently in second and sixth places. Edit: RM 20 gms, 12 wins-1 loss, 36 GF/12 GA Barça 19 gms, 12 wins-3 losses, 49 GF/23 GA. An MLS team would kill for those numbers, and they certainly wouldn't be in a "down year"
Yeah, for sure. This was absolutely true early on, and the perception has survived long after the reality has gone over the rainbow to see Dorothy and Toto. And in fact it wasnt a terrible plan in a lot of respects but the execution was so horrible that it didnt really work. Sure LA won more than their share but aside from steering Landon onto the team, the reason they did well was because the team was run by smart guys. The Metros, conversely, were run by clods and there wasn't much the league could do to change that.
Agreed that there was definitely some "greater good" moves early in the league history, as well as some catering to starts (the Carlos back to Tampa being probably the most egregious, but that's debatable. There are plenty of contenders to the throne.) But I'm actually not completely sold that there was any ill-intent or machinations to get Landon to Los Angeles, at least not until he decided to flee Bayer. If San Jose hadn't used the allocation funds, he would've been back in the Bay area. Now making sure he landed in LA once nobody had a set claim, that's definitely a gray area and may not hold up on tighter inspection.
It gets my vote. The Freddie Adu to DC machinations and the Luis Hernandez mess complete the hat-trick. (Again, all for the good of the league, but you can't look at those as completely above board)
Forgot about Freddie. That was disgraceful. Yes, he needed to go to DC. Nobody minded. But screwi g over Dallas in an effort to pretend it was an open, voluntary process when it was in fact felony ass rape in the first degree was not Don Garbers finest moment.
Barca just sacked the manager. Teams that are running rampant often fire the manager, or so I've heard. And aside from that, each have only won 12 of 20. Barca is 6 clear of 4th. Look, while I get the overall point, I'd hardly call a 6-8 pt edge running rampant. Especially since the margin is usually a lot more (as you well know) by now. And a lot of this year's margin has opened recently. Liverpool is running rampant. Last year, they and City both did. 90+ points is running rampant. Barca are on pace for what, 76? Both you and Andy need to buy a thesaurus, because you have no idea what rampant means. Winning 60% of your games is good, but not rampant (unchecked). Madrid finished 3rd last year, with 68 points. Barca had 87. Barca is at Atleti's pace from last year (76 points). Barca had 93 points the year before. Winning 28 of 38. Winning 74% of games. I'd call that rampant. They have already not won 8 this year at the halfway mark. But Madrid again finished 3rd, and 3pts ahead of 4th. The last year they both ran rampant was 16-17. Both at 90+ points. Atleti had 78 (where Barca is heading now) and were 12 points from 2nd and 15 out of 1st).
My frame of reference is MLS. Show me, in the first 24 seasons of MLS, a team that had 12 wins and only 1 loss that wasn't running rampant. Go ahead.