Not ideal, but better than not playing. It weird that other sports don’t seem to be as crippled by these challenges.
I get your point but the leagues that do this have established minors. I would love to see the NASL be a proper second and third division for the MLS but we are not there yet. I wouldn't accept expansion teams unless they had a plan to also add a second team in the next 5 years. However we are not there yet and we are not near a full second team league yet.
Moved from another thread I think “overvalued” is too broad when comparing back-rotation/bench players in the majors vs. minor leaguers. Who’s better: EH or Nagbe? Hard to say, quite frankly, and there’s no proof in either direction. There certainly are minor leaguers who can compete in the majors (LD) but the challenge with judging their performance is that the speed of play is much lower. I do struggle with those who compare major league rotational/starting players with minor leaguers based upontheir performance in league play as it’s really apples to oranges there.
When LD played in the Premier League he was a difference-making impact starter for his mid-table side in both stints, playing a different role both times he was there as they needed him. The "minor leagues" didn't slow his play down a bit. And your definition is simply too much of a cognitive crutch. To place that as a judgment is one thing (yes, compared to the Premier League, MLS is indeed a "minor league,") but don't use the term as an analytical tool or value multiplier or anything, THAT is where I say that the use of this term is throwing off your judgment.
I acknowledged that LD was a major leaguer caliber player even while in the minors. The point is that excelling in the minors (not just MLS but also Eredivise, LigaMX, etc.) doesn’t mean that it automatically translates when the game speeds up just like it doesn’t in minor league baseball and college basketball/football. There are also players who don’t look great in the minors but become major leaguers. You call it a cognitive crutch but their performance simply isn’t comparable to others who play in top flight. It doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t but the odds are against it. People don’t get upset wrt to baseball, football, hockey and basketball minor leaguers but MLS fans (but not championship or B2) get triggered. Go figure.
No, not "triggered." It's simply that you're reading WAY too much into it, as if there were a firewall between them, as if one were amateur and the other were pro. It simply isn't the case. And people don't pretend that Championship or BL2 form has no bearing at all on PL or BL1 potential. Rather, they look at their performances a tier down for what they are...
Maybe people get "triggered" because the major/minor parlance isn't really used to refer to any country's first division, so it kind of makes one look like they're trolling if they routinely call Major League Soccer "minor." Comparatively, I've never seen anyone complain after the USL is referred to as minor league soccer. Why not just use "lesser" or "better" league? Like in the YA forum some posters expressed concerns about Hyndman in Scotland, but no one said "he's in the minors."
Understanding a player's relative talent is important in making cross competition comparisons. Meaning, what can this guy actually do. Similarly production must be contextualized. Meaning, how and why have they scored. Brian McBride's finishing rate was higher with Fulham than in MLS (this remained true after he came back). The reason was that he had a world class ability (winning headed balls) that his new, better teammates could take better advantage of. Or look at the New England Revolution after the turn of the century. The FW with the near record breaking goal returns only got a cup of tea while the brash 8 became his country's all-time leading goal scorer. It's because the latter guy had more skill, more creativity, more physical abilities such that when he was played higher up at a higher level he could score in more ways and still fight to get on the end of service.
I’m not sure how that’s any different from what I’m saying. Globally, the best leagues are significantly above the other leagues much like MLB is above AAA baseball, European basketball or god forbid, the amateurs in college basketball and football. It’s not a firewall but rather a significant difference in level of play. I don’t think I can be much clearer that there are minor leaguers who can compete in the majors just like.....wait for it......baseball’s minor leagues or college football and basketball.
The reason I use it is to delineate between the leagues that approximate World Cup speeds/intensity and those that don’t. The players who are in minor leagues across sports usually want to play in the majors although I’m sure in each sport there are those who chose to stay in the minors. More specifically, I believe that strong performance in the minor leagues doesn’t directly correlate to which players succeed at the highest level, just as there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who can’t cut it in the NFL and lots of AAA all-stars who just can’t translate in the majors. I also think that the thought that most of European soccer is better than MLS to be a complete farce and wanted to highlight that the majority of those leagues are also minor leagues and should be treated from a USMNT perspective exactly like we treat MLS. Hyndman looks good playing in the SPL: that’s nice but it’s not close to WC speed so we should take any performance there with a huge grain of salt. Doesn’t mean disregard it, just that it’s not directly comparable to what we need. Furthermore, BS poster often use “first division” as a signifier of some value and I think that’s totally wrong from a USMNT perspective. The championship and B2 are second leagues in their countries and no one blinks an eye if they’re referred to as “feeder” or “developmental”: they are also at the same level as many first division leagues including MLS which are collectively “minor leagues” to the Big 4. Why is it only MLS posters who get triggered by it but “feeder” leagues like the eredivise are well acknowledged by their fans to be minor as compared to the big 4? Why does the delineation of leagues which approximately World Cup speeds vs those that don’t and therefore develop players for those top leagues bother MLS posters so much? I’ve yet to see a poster disagree that the Big 4 leagues are significantly better than the minor leagues. If the semantics of “minor” vs “lesser” vs “feeder” vs. “developmental” league is important to you, feel free to change it in your head each time you see it.
MLS fans are the most sensitive and discriminate against players based on where they play more than anybody. Most league comparison discussions are started by MLS fans trying to prop the league up. They complain of euro pixie dust and then proceed to claim a player shouldnt be in the national team because their league isnt strong enough. You know, like Hyndman in that "lesser league". In what way is MLS "major" other than they put it in their name, they are the top league in a country where there isnt significant talent, their marketing department, and expansion fees/stadiums? I dont really care but i'd use Minor or mickey mouse or marketing to describe the league before id use major.
Is this not what one does when looking at AAA baseball players and strong college football and basketball players? They don’t take the most successful players and simply assume they’re good enough to be major leaguers. They try to determine their potential and minor league performance is just one important aspect of how minor league players are judged.
Different fan cultures I suppose? Although on this site alone I've noticed posters who can be extremely exuberant when it comes to defending their preferred league, be it the Danish league or the Iranian league or whatever, so I'd hardly say MLS fans are that out of the ordinary. I guess it's a matter of what you focus on. I could ask why certain U.S. fans are so easily "triggered" by someone merely speaking excitedly or positively about MLS.
I'd think a couple of broad areas... MLS direct and indirect role in the US not qualifying for the world cup. The league's attack of the usmnt team coach and its media discount the teams accomplishments while highlighting every shortcoming. They got the MLS coach they wanted the relief way too much on MLS player that failed. The other is the league has yet to be good for the development on American players and has at time stood in the way of players moving on to better opportunities. There are those that speak highly of the league and argue the league "owes" the usmnt nothing.
They are actually quite different things. The words I used specifically describe the league... in the global game, MLS is minor league. in many ways they dont even participate in the global game. the leagues biggest focus is on marketing and their perception. they are so worried about how they are perceived that it often interferes with doing what is best for American players. the leagues rules are Mickey mouse. they convoluted, confusing, not transparent, and are often not good for the game. The use of "magic euro pixie dust" is used to distract and avoid the actual issues of MLS. There is nothing mythical about it. It is some combination of top competition, top coaching, top development, ease of movement, and teams generally viewing its players as assets that they want to maximize their values. MLS will continue to evolve and hopefully get better at many of the things they do poorly at related to American players. I think I gave them the benefit of the doubt long enough. I have concerns about their contribution to the improvement of our national team and believe there is tons more they could do.
To you they might. And I could describe MLS by way of a host of more positive terms, mainly having to do with the current domestic environment and quality of play compared to the barren environment I grew up in pre-MLS. I don't see how "Mickey Mouse" describes anything in any meaningful way--that's a cliché used to mock what certain chest-thumping fans see as leagues and competitions not worth their time. Now if you just called out MLS for having labyrinthine rules and regulations in the first place, that would've been a different thing, and a discussion worth having. I agree with that view in some respects, while also thinking the MLS system has been good for the league and U.S. soccer in general in other ways. Generally, though, if one uses "Euro dust," "Mickey Mouse," or even "triggered" in a non-ironic way, I don't take them seriously.
if you want to settle on a euphemistic description of MLS, I could go with a lower level league, that focuses on perception, with obscure and complicated rules to give league owners* as much flexibility as possible. * said league owners and officials have limited knowledge of the actual game thoughts?
I don’t know what other word to use other than triggered as there are several MLS backers (including yourself) who get bent out of shape when I use the term “minor league” to describe non-elite leagues on the global scale. This occurs even when they acknowledge that these leagues are lesser than the big 4 majors and typically act as developmental feeders for the best leagues just like minor league baseball teams do. The reaction almost always includes some comment that I use it as a black and white tool when my point is quite different: it’s not apples to apples and performance at lower speeds and levels isn’t directly correlated to success in the majors and that generally speaking, it’s reasonable to assume that major league players are better than minor leaguers. Hardly seems controversial to treat MLS and similar leagues to the Championship and B2 in quality, which most would agree are minor leagues.
I have to admit that I find your post funny. How can you say your description of MLS (MIckey Mouse) specifically describes MLS and at the same time fail how "Euro pixy dust" is a specific description of the effect of being in a European league has on a player's reputation with fans. You can agree or disagree with the "Euro pixie dust" effect but the description is pretty specific.(in my opinion). By the way, I do think that Mickey mouse is specific enough so that I understand the intended meaning.
Use what you want, I just find "triggered" to be needlessly confrontational given its current political usage. But I guess it fits your style, as you're always quick to apply labels in a confrontational manner. Such as "MLS backer," as opposed to a fellow soccer fan who might not align with your fan priorities in every way.
I think the uniqueness of MLS's challenges is often downplayed or ignored. It is a neophyte league compared to the rest of the leagues in the world. I keep saying to compare it to the K-league, J-league or A-league are the best comparisons and A-league is best because it is the 4th sport in the country where soccer is 5th at best in the US.
I find your arguments to be semantic rather than substantive. You fail to address broader point and instead focus on language. I guess that fits your style