Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club" Title from DCU?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club" Title f

The CONCACAF Cup and the InterAmerican Cup.

I don't think DC United ever referred to themselves as a dynasty. In fact, the word doesn't occur on their official web site at all. Nor did any DC fan in this thread use the word - until you introduced it. Which is interesting.

Try a google search on the words 'DC United' and 'dynasty' and you get a lot of articles from 'moronic' sources like MLSNet, Associated Press and the Washington Post describing DC United as a 'dynasty'. Personally, I was always a little uncomfortable with the term myself, not least because it seemed to be tempting fate. As I recall Bruce Arena never liked it either. But clearly a lot of people who were not DC United fans thought it was an appropriate term to use.

For example, the AP article written after DC United's last MLS Cup victory shows how, at the time, there was enough concern about DC's 'domination' to warrant questions to the Commissioner of the league.

(Full article is at
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/1999/mls_cup/news/1999/11/22/mlscup_follow_ap/)

How the mighty have fallen -

As it happens I agree with your earlier point about it being too early to declare any team definitively the 'best' in MLS. But DC are the only team so far to have prompted questions like the above. When people start asking the same kinds of questions about Chicago, please feel free to go ahead and use the words 'Chicago Fire', 'dominate' and 'dynasty' in any combination you wish.

 

Dammit, if the argument isn't about Etch, Hristo, or Hudson get it off our boards.

 

Well, I think the breaker in this dispute between the old DC United and the current Fire can best be judged by the careers the players will lead following their success in MLS.

Recalling DC United, I think of Tony Sanneh and his success in Europe, Agoos' strong performances since, Pope's outbreak as the USMNT best back, the glory years of Marco Etcheverry, the leadership and legend of John Harkes, the goals of Roy Lassiter, Raul Diaz Arce and Jaime Moreno.

Conversely, I think seeing where the Fire's current crop are in 5 years will tell the whole story. Will Beasley be a star on a strong European side? Bocanegra a great back on a Premiership side? Damani Ralph an MLS, Jamaican star or even European side? Justin Mapp a national team talent and MLS regular? Chris Armas a Premier League holding midfielder?

 

i think until the fire win an international cup they can make a case against us one thing is two win open cups its a whole different thing to win an international cup like we did in 1998 against vasco

no disrepect but i think its too premature to talk about this

 

Not to throw a bunch of cold water on the debate but we've got to remember that we earned two of our three MLS cups before the Fire even existed and in their first year of existence, they denied us a third.


But I'm with Segroves in that it's too early to declare a best club. In fact, it's silly to try because all we have to do is noodle with the criteria a little bit to get the results that we want, whatever those might be.

 

Not only was it on US soil, but DC's win was in RFK Stadium.

You make a good point - the tournament's at that point were much easier for MLS teams to win because they were shorter (anything that stretches our paper-thin rosters is going to cause trouble for MLS teams). That being said, even if they were in one-offs, we beat some pretty damn good teams that year.

RS

 

DC lost at RFK. 1-0. A Vasco player hit a rocket from about 35 yards that Presthus never saw.

DC won at Lockhart, I think. 2-1.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club"

Poor refereeing

 

That's true, they did...but it was with our assistant coach at the helm and a handful of good players from the league (including our Jesse Marsch) to round out the eastern bloc contingent. Without Nowak, Kubik, Armas, and Bradley...that team would not have won in '98, nor would they be the force they are today. Dynasties are made over generations and is a topic far too premature to be discussed in regards to MLS teams right now. MLS is moving towards its 10th anniversary...when we're getting ready to celebrate its 100th year, then we can start arguing about who had a dynasty.

The term "Best Team in MLS History" is also, IMHO, a term not yet ready to be used with such a young league. As many have posted, in a league where 80% of the teams make the playoffs and only one team has won multiple league cups, all the talk of who's on top is subjective at best. LA have consistency in the post season, but not as much hardware. Chicago has been able to successfully transition a consistently good team to a new generation so far, but will they be able to keep it up over more than one generation? Youngsters like Mapp infer they're on the right track. DC has the trophies and the brand recognition (more people around the world, if they are aware of MLS, are more likely to know of it through United).

If we are to make a judgment purely on how an outsider views the league, then at the moment, DC is still the flagbearer of MLS. News of Chicago's Eastern Conference dominance this season was met from many non-MLS followers with, "Chicago has a team?"
United, however, is widely known and respected. In addition to the trophy case, international success against European teams such as Spurs and Blackburn, the partnership with Leverkeusen, and buzzworthy newsbits like the Convey transfer fiasco set the team apart and raised it's profile. I have friends in South America that still talk about the team that beat Vasco and now have a heightened interest in MLS because of that achievment. I think that aspect has to be taken into consideration just as much as draft choices or playoff appearances. In other words, one should look at what a team has done for the league as a whole in addition to records and titles.

 

It should be pointed out, however, that Chicago is the only team in MLS history to win the West, East, and Central.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club" Title f

Dude seriously stop hating. Every post I have seen of yours is a rant about something. My suggestion to and your constant posting of pure crap is to think before typing. How many trophies does DC have? So from a silverware standpoint we are the best. Also we have international trophies and no one else in the league does. True that over the past four years DC has not been at its best, but most of that was due to bad luck and injuries. Take your best 11 from the Fire and I'll choose my DC best 11 and your club will get worked. I hope the Fire loses this weekend so you will be miserable this offseason and also I so I can read some more of your ranting with posts about how the Fire should have one. Your weak and so is your club.

 

This is EXACTLY the sort of discussion that conjures up the term Sports Geek. It's eerily remeniscent of a Bill Simmons column on ESPN.com where he gave a long-winded discussion about why the Shaq-Kobe Lakers were NOT a dynasty..... Of course, he's a lifelong Celtics fan................

 

Yes. They done well even as the level of play in the MLS has improved. DC has not.

 

I look forward to the 2006 season and debating this for the 10th anniversary of the league.

Of course, by then Freddy Adu will have led us to the triple in 05, becoming the first side to take it.

This will make the debate much easier.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club" Tit

I'd take the Fire if we're matching best 11's of all time, without doubt. Someone would get "worked" alright.....the same team who got "worked" out of the playoffs this year.

Speaking of miserable offseason's, how's it going out east? While you make daycare arrangements for your young soccer prodigy we'll be out playing MLS Cup. If that's the sign of a weak club, count me in.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club"

bullCHAT................

In their prime here's DC United's lineup (and we had ALL these guys in their PRIME):

Forwards: RDA, Moreno (Lassiter supersub if losing)

Mids: Etcheverry, Harkes, R Williams, Olsen

Defensemen: Agoos, Sanneh, Llamosa, Pope

Goalie: Garlick

Coach: Arena

There is ZERO-and I mean ZERO way that you can LEGITIMATELY claim the Fire have had a better team collectively in their prime than those guys. RIDICULOUS. Galaxy maybe have a case-but don't have the metal to go w/how good they've been over theyears. RIDICULOUS. And if you don't think so-give your "in their prime" 11 from the Fire that beats that team-I could use a good laugh.

This year the Fire have had that small home field plastic advantage that's been carrying them through the entire season. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost against San Jose at Home Depot Center.

DC has more hardware than any other team in MLS. So I don't know what Jeff Bradley's thinking-but I do know Jeff Bradley's brother in New York hasn't done much more than jack s for his Metros team while the Fire have been doing just fine w/out him.

 

I wouldn't even need to give the Fire's Best 11. This year's Fire team would compete very well with that Best 11 team.

As to whether you think the claim is LEGITIMATE, I could care less.

That defensive line of Agoos, Sanneh, Llamosa, and Pope is strong though - I'll give you that.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club"

I tell you why you and your club are weak. If you had a sense of confidence in your so called "11" of all time then you would look at this thread and laugh, but you don't and that is why you feel the need to argue. You want a miserable offseason wait until sunday at 5:30 EST. Also I can't wait until Boca, Beasley, and Ralph defect. Have fun kenny.

 

Sanneh rarely played right back for us. Only down the stretch in 1998 when he came back from injury and Bruce wanted both him and Ben on the field at the same time. For most of 1998 it was Aunger, and in 1997 we had Vaudreil.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Per Jeff Bradley: If Chicago Wins Do They Take the "Best Club&q

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop using this as an excuse people. I can't stand it. Everyone talks about it like the small field is the only reason chicago has won games. That is bullsh**. We've won EVERY game at Soldier Field, we won at your field, and we handled the Galaxy at the HDC. I don't care about the conjecture regarding the "best club in MLS". Everyone has valid points and I wouldn't want to take anything away from the wonderful DC teams of the past. It just really bothers me when people pretend like the only reason the Fire have won is because of a small field.

 

We've won EVERY game at Soldier Field, we won at your field, and we handled the Galaxy at the HDC.


i dont want to sound like a jerk but we beat you once in your field

 

I swear! Reading comprehension is at an all-time low on this board. I'm going to explain this step by step.

Budwiser says: "This year the Fire have had that small home field plastic advantage that's been carrying them through the entire season. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost against San Jose at Home Depot Center."

In this post Budwiser claims that the Fire have ridden an advantage they had playing in Naperville all the way to the MLS Cup but once they get on a big field with real grass that advantage will be gone.

In reply Greddy says: "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop using this as an excuse people. I can't stand it. Everyone talks about it like the small field is the only reason chicago has won games. That is bullsh**. We've won EVERY game at Soldier Field, we won at your field, and we handled the Galaxy at the HDC. I don't care about the conjecture regarding the "best club in MLS". Everyone has valid points and I wouldn't want to take anything away from the wonderful DC teams of the past. It just really bothers me when people pretend like the only reason the Fire have won is because of a small field."

Greddy's claim is then that the advantage that Budwiser says carried the Fire through the season (playing at Naperville) isn't enough to explain their success elsewhere. They won every game at Soldier Field (Soldier Field ain't Naperville) and handily beat Los Angeles in the HDC. For Greddy that's evidence that the Fire have proven themselves away from Naperville on big, real grass fields.

Then vivaelbolivar says: "i dont want to sound like a jerk but we beat you once in your field"

Now what vivaelbolivar does there is totally miss the entire significance of the ongoing discussion. It's not about whether DC United beat Chicago in Naperville. That's just not relevant to the topic at issue. What makes you sound like a jerk isn't the statement that DC United beat Chicago in Naperville (they didn't beat them at Soldier Field this year, by the way) but the fact that you plainly didn't put in the effort to understand what Budwiser and Greddy were arguing about.

So forgive my own rudeness but I've seen this sort of thing a sufficient number of times on this board that I've just gotta say it: If you're not going to take the time to understand what people are actually writing here then please don't bother responding.