San Jose Earthquakes vs European clubs

I think the Earthquakes could compete well in some aspects of the game. They might not be physically strong enough to win in the Premiership. Fulham had a player called Jon Harley and the manager released him, saying, "He's too lightweight for the Premiership but he'll make a good Division 1 player." It's difficult in the U.S. where you know that your sport doesn't have first chance at your nation's best (or biggest) athletes.

One thing about Middlesborough and physical strength is that a player like Yakubu, when he wants to muscle you off the ball, he does. Ching meanwhile was criticized after his last national team performance for not using his size and holding the ball up better. There's more pressure on the players in other countries and that means whatever assets they have, they have to use. If Ching did play in the Premiership, he would learn to be more physically imposing.

 

DC United's Jaime Moreno was a bust with Middlesbrough but has forged out an excellent decade-long career in MLS. I'd argue his example is instructive. No individual MLS team is on the same level as even the bottom clubs in the Premiership, Bundesliga, Serie A or La Liga. However, I believe that MLS teams would be very competitive in the Coca Cola Football League Championship, Serie B or the Scottish Premier League.

 

I think that has to be the hope. The average MLS player makes a fairly modest amount of money and if he can match the second-division players elsewhere, I think that's an achievement. It's no shame at all.

 

A few years ago at a "Meet the Quakes" session at Spartan someone asked a similar question of Frank Yallop, how well would the Quakes do in a given European league like the EPL. Like many other non-soccer-playing fans in the audience, I only thought in terms of who would win if they played just one game. I thought his answer very interesting as it gave the perspective of a professional player. He said that the team could do as well as most of the clubs in a given game, but that there was not enough depth on the roster to make it through a season successfully. Other teams had the talent and numbers to maintain consistency through injuries, roster changes etc. so the Earthquakes team would best be placed in First or Second Division, but on a good day could beat higher level teams, and the Quakes had some individuals who could play at a higher level.

 

The Earthquakes B team (mostly subs and reserves) took on La Liga Alaves back in July or August, while Alaves was doing its pre-season training in northern California. The result of this game played at Spartan Stadium in San Jose was 1-1.

Of course, Alaves used all of its players, not just its best 11, with totally different lineups in each half.

We now see that Alaves is a borderline relegation team in La Liga.

One could argue that the Earthquakes, using their A team, would be safely above the relegation zone if they had played in La Liga.

 

There's a hugh difference between the top and bottom of Serie A. I think the Quakes could hold there own, and maybe avoid relagation, but beyond that it would be tough.

 

Well after living in Italy for 3 years and coming back this year to watch the Quakes, I would say that the Quakes would equal maybe a bottom tier Serie A or maybe an upper tier Serie B club. Actually, I saw some games in the Serie B and C and those games were much more competitive than the MLS. The competition anywhere in Italy is tremendous. I also think playing week in and week out against teams like Inter and AC Milan and Juventus raises the level of everyone else. I mean how can you not get better by playing against those teams? Its either you play your guts out every week or you will lose and get relegated.
I remember watching most of the Brescia games a few years ago only because Roberto Baggio was in his last year and I wanted to see him play before he ended it. The club did well with Baggio at the helm. Without him however, when Baggio retired the very next year the club was relegated to the Serie B and the coach was replaced after a few games. Usually, in Italy anyway, when you have a star like a Baggio on a lowly team the club is good enough to make the Uefa Cup.
The Quakes would have done well in Serie B or C which is about the same level as the MLS. Maybe they would have been saved from relegation in the Serie A but I seriously doubt they could hang in there each year in the top tier.

 

The problem with these comparisons is that the budgets of the teams are so vastly different. MLS teams usually have 3-6 really good players. Top Euro leagues have 20+ players who would be of that quality in MLS. So maybe by combining 2-3 MLS teams you could make a team that could contend in any Euro league. But the MLS teams the way they are have no depth and once the starters get injured, suspended, or just plain tired, they lose the ability to compete.

Did you see the exhibition game last year betw. DC United and Chelsea? In the first half, DC United managed to hold Chelsea down pretty well. But right after halftime they did 11 subs, bringing on 11 fresh, very talented players, and DC just didn't have the depth, so their same squad for the most part which by now were exhausted keeping up with Chelsea had to face a completely fresh Chelsea side, and the second half did not go well for DC.

In a league game you only get 3 subs, but the effect would be the same over the season. They'd kick ass the first few weeks then fizzle out.

 

Spot-on. And there's also the fact that standards of defending in MLS have always been horrendously poor compared to those in the top European leagues. At least a third - perhaps even half - of the goals I saw scored in MLS last season would have been cut out by competent defenders before they even became half-chances, or prevented by decent goalkeeping. Because of the nature of the soccer market in the US, MLS has spent its money on signing attacking players and made defense an afterthought in comparison to its importance in big-time leagues elsewhere. But since defense is at least half of the game, I couldn't really see an MLS team surviving relegation in the English Premiership, La Liga, Serie A or Bundesliga.

There's also the fact that Chelsea (and Alaves, for that matter) were in pre-season training while MLS clubs were already in mid-season form. Not a factor to be overlooked.

 

And that argument fails to take into account the vast improvements in the league.

And to be clear, when there's only 4-5 dominant clubs, the minnows are facing a dominant club every 3-4 weeks. More often than not, they're facing ... each other.

One thing I have noticed is that the quality of soccer in the big leagues goes down once everybody is essentially eliminated from the top spots come february, for some as early as late october.

 

I agree about the depth of the bench on clubs such as AC Milan, Inter and Juventus have. They literally have superstars who would not only be starters in the MLS but would be stars and league MVP's. I love Preki and thought he was the class of the MLS and still think he had something left if he wanted to play. Preki however, (bless his heart) would probably not have made a first team in Italy. When I see Martin and Costacurta and maybe even a Recoba on the bench, I just relish to think what they could do in this country.
We should also remember that the MLS is pretty much a Spring & Summer League. In some ways its easier to play in the summer regardless of the warm weather. There are 2 theories when soccer is played in the summer months. First of all, the game slows down in the warm weather as opposed to fast exciting soccer in Eruo league during the winter. Players look real slow in the summer and real fast and dynamic in Europe running all over the place in the winter. The game is speeded up considerably in the winter. In England , during the rainy season you have the traditional long ball and in Italy you have the defensive game. Also, when the ground is wet and frozen and what have you, it is very difficult to play on such a surface. If you don't have stars there is no way they could make any impact at all. Even though it gets very hot during the summers here in MLS cities, the surfaces are usually in great shape. To tell you the truth,m San Jose and the Bay Area has got to have ideal weather conditions for soccer especially compared to the hot and humid summers of Houston, Texas. The best team in the league (OUR BELOVED QUAKES) may very well have a difficult time adjusting to playing conditions next year and not play as well as they did in SJ.

 

I would suppose that one of the reasons MLS wanted a more summer season is that playing in the winter would mean playing in the winter in places like Chicago or New Jersey. I've been in south and central Europe during the winter, and it's nothing compared to Chicago at 25 below zero. The guys would all have to be wearing fur-lined jockstraps and parkas with hoods to survive, let alone play, in that weather. Also, most areas in the states are hotter than Europe during the summer. The European summer is pretty mild. Your point is taken, though, that diverse weather conditons require alternation of skills.

 

Sporting Lisbon A- Team, anyone?

 

Check out the Houston bigsoccer site for a discussion on the humidity and its impact on players and fans.

Incredible! I spent a month in Houston one weekend in May. It was godawful weather 24/7. Thunderstorms come rolling through around 4 pm, heat and humidity never let up, and mosquitoes the size of baseballs start attacking at sunset.

God laughs last, AEG.

 

I have been told by people who lived in Houston that one of the reasons air-conditioning has to be on throughout the summer is that if it isn't, the mold will get out of control and climb the walls. Never have been there, so I only go by what I've been told.

 

And that was the 2004 team, which was not as good (maybe the reserves which populated half the players in each half were better than the '05 reserves)