Jersey boy Ives with his take on the best of the MLS squads; http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=336673&cc=5901 Gotta say, I think #2 (DCU '98) and #1 (Fire '98) should be switched...and he seems to have forgotten about United beating Vasco de Gama for the Inter-American Cup that year. Of course DCU with 2 of the top 3 and 3 in the 10, as it should be. But no Metros in sight.
Ditto. I've always thought that was the best team that was ever assembled in MLS. The individual skill of the players on the team, the way the team gelled, the results.... My memory from MLS Cup that year was what an injustice it was that DC didn't win the cup (not saying that CHI didn't deserve to win that game...just saying that DC was the absolute class of the league that entire year).
One minor quibble with his depiction of 1999 United at #8: 1996: 56 GA 1997: 53 GA 1998: 48 GA 1999: 43 GA
As much as I hate to say it, if NE can go through the rest of the season with 5 or less loses and win the Cup they might have to go to #1.
They would definitely deserve it if they did. The 2001 Fusion only lost 5 regular season games (albeit in a 26-game season) and didn't get a mention on the list (although he acknowledges they were considered). But there's no way they are not going to lose plenty more games between now and the end of the season. I think their backline will fall apart pretty soon.
You know what they say about Ifs and Butts. About the #1 Chicago vs #2 DC 1998 teams. I actually think that by virtue of the fact that Chicago beat DC in the final of MLS that year, they were the best MLS team of that year. However, the best pro team in the Americas that year was DC United. I think we'll give them this little distinction in favor of a bigger one. Tim
It says here that at the end of last year the 2004 DCU was better than the 96 or 99 DCU's. The 98 Gals shouldn't be on the list ( the 02 gals should be but below both Quakes winners.) The 03 Quakes should be right behind the 97 United. Maybe the 98 Fire is at #10. The 03 Fire was better. The 00 Wiz is also overrated IMO.
The funny thing is if the Chicago team didn't win the cup then they wouldn't even be on this list while DCU and LA both made the list without winning the cup, yet Chicago is #1. Go figure.
Wasn't there something funky about the playoff scheduling that year. My memory fades (old guy) but didn't DC have play on 3 days rest while Chicago had a full week off or whatnot? Better minds may recall. All i have is a continuing vague feeling that we were robbed and we should have been 4-for-4.
Indeed there was only three day's rest after a difficult 3-game final for DC. But we DC fans do not make excuses. Chicago won the battle. DC is winning the war. Tim
What are the "facts" exactly? Pure goal totals don't always tell the story. In 97 and 98 those goals allowed numbers were solid in comparison with the rest of the league while 99 was the first year of the goal decline in the league, so 43 actually wasn't as good a number as 48 was the year before. Here are D.C.'s goals against rankings in the league during those years. 96-8th 97-5th 98-3rd 99-6th As the saying goes, stats can say whatever you want them to. I remember D.C. having a much tougher D in 98 and 97 than in 99. In 97 and 98 it seemed like a lot of goals they gave up would come when the match was already decided in D.C.'s favor. The 99 team gave up fewer goals but that was because A) the whole league was scoring less and B) their games were tighter than in previous years, they weren't blowing people out as much. I'll leave it for the D.C. historians to argue.
2000 Fire. I'm still pissed about the MLS Cup, but what a great team that was. Stoitchkov, Razov, Wolff, Kovalenko, Beasley, Bocanegra, Kubik, etc.
Agree United was better than Chicago that year. Chicago's MLS cup victory was a gift from the Ref. A clear foul on Etch in the box was totally disregarded by the ref.
The article says "The defense wasn't as stingy as in previous years, with injuries to Carlos Llamosa and Eddie Pope limiting them to a combined 36 games played." Yet Pope and Llamosa only played in 38 total games in 1998 (albeit 52 in 1997). with Pope missing a month and a half due to the WC, and Llamosa missing almost three months with an injury that he picked up in the 4-3 loss to the Metros in May that dogged him until late August. You also have to factor Agoos into the equation. With him also at the WC for two months in 1998, after Llamosa went down, our backline consisted of Aunger, Talley, and Gori with Harkes, Sanneh and/or Kamler helping them out. In 1999, Agoos played 30 games and had probably his best year defensively. The right back position was held mostly by Sonora, who brought stability to the position. And let's also not forget that Talley improved considerably between 98 and 99, filling in very well for Pope, Llamosa and Sonora when they were hurt to the point where he wound up being our starting right back in 2000 (albeit with not very good results). You're right, scoring was down in 1999 on the whole. But let's also not forget that LA went to a more defensive system under Sigi (85 G v. 49 G). Those 36 goals, in and of themselves, accounted for 41% of the drop in total goals between the two years (391 v. 305).
Yeah, I think teams are starting to get a read on him the way that they did with Parke as last year wore on.
As I said Lanky, you can make stats say anything you want. So which defense was better, 98 or 99, when everyone was healthy? True about Parkhurst, when Sergio Galvan Rey is torching you it's Rookie Wall time.