News: MLS clubs have resolution over qualifying for future CCL after format change

So much angst over the teams who'll just go on to lose.

 

Basically the USSF decided to honor existing qualification promises to Seattle, Dallas, NYRB and Colorado while the CSA decided to apply an immediate fix - retracting the definite berth from Toronto. How will the FMF handle it? By my calculation Mexico will have six qualified teams for the 2018 Champions Cup...errr...League.

 

Yes, but how many viewers did the Premier League have around the world the last time they didn't have clubs in the Champions League? I think if the Premier League went a season without Champions League access it would cost them more revenue now than it did then.

 

Well for 2 years the regular season conference winners will have to content themselves with getting the #1 and #2 seeds in the MLS playoffs.

 

As it relates to MLS it doesn't really matter much. Any of the top 8 teams in Liga MX can beat any MLS team. So really, Mexico can send any playoff teams and wipe out MLS teams. For me as a US/MLS guy who Mexico sends mostly matters because I'd like to see CONCACAF well represented in the CWC.
As long as it isn't Chivas.

 

I don't know if I'd necessarily say that, imo. I think a team like the Timbers could beat a lot of Mexican teams. Dallas played Pachuca evenly, and I don't think Dallas is a top 4 team. Timbers, Crew, ATL utd, and Orlando (with kaka back), are better teams than fc dallas right now, imo.

FC Dallas is about the level of Toronto, Dallas's problem is they have no offensive difference makers without Diaz.

 

?!

 

Huh?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

Technically the Timbers could beat a lot of Mexican teams. There are probably thousands of teams in Mexico and only 18 of them play in Liga MX. I would guess most MLS teams could beat Caballeros Gordos del Camión de Tacos FC.

 

What are you questioning about that part of the post? There certainly are at least four or five teams better than Dallas.

Dallas's problem is they have no body on offense that are play makers and that teams fear (without Diaz). Barrios sucks and Lamah is the definition of mediocre, Coleman is just "ok".

Dallas is a very organized team, and that's how they get wins.

 

What? Are you saying that the Galaxy and NYCFC are better but they're totally disorganized and Dallas is organized so Dallas can beat them but Dallas is still a worse team?

Because I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

 

No, I'm saying Dallas can pull out some wins against average to solid MLS teams because they're a very sounly organized team. But FC Dallas has very average players offensively, and when FC Dallas has to play any very good teams they don't have enough firepower to win.

You're not gonna be able to beat MX teams with Barrios and Lamah, not matter how organized they are, that's what I'm saying.

They don't have a Diego Valeri, Sebastian Giovinco, Jordan Morris, Miguel Almiron, Clint Dempsey, Josef Martinez, Cyle Larin, Ignacio Piatti etc.

 

Yet the thing that saw them knocked out was disorganized passing out of the back, an inability to keep the ball in a structured fashion, and a blunder which had nothing to do with their ability to score...which they had just done...on the road.

 

Yea, in the road game they did have some blunders passing out of the back, even though their back is usually pretty good. And of course they had the big blunder which lead to an easy Pachuca score.

As far as not being able to keep the ball in a structured fashion, that has to do with their extremely average players going foward on offense. They don't have the technical skills to handle the jump in competition. It's easy to lose count of how many times Barrios fumbles the ball at his feet and loses possession.

 

Errr, didn't they just beat a Mexican team with Barrios and Lamah in the lineup last month?

 

Can I ask where you get that idea? I know it's a big deal to the supporters of some teams, but I don't know that I've ever heard a head coach or owner talk about the USOC as a big priority because of that CCL spot.

------RM

 

But see, that's the thing. How interested are we in actually wining this tournament? Or is it more important that CCL spots be given out to those who "deserve" them regardless of what their chances are?

Having a big delay between qualification and the tournament makes no sense if you care about winning, especially in this league. Too much can change by the time the tournament rolls around. The Crew host MLS Cup in 2015, fall apart the next year. If a team is good enough to qualify, you want them playing those games while they're still good, not two years down the road when anything could've happened.

------RM

 

I recall the Sounders talking about it when they entered the league, and then they proceeded to win the Open Cup in each of their first three MLS seasons.

 

I'm not sure it was CCL that caused the Sounders to do well in USOC, but rather a desire to win everything. The Sounders were certainly interested in playing in CCL as they viewed it as a way to expand their brand into the rest of North America and a way to attract interest from North American players, but I'm not sure that should be extended as the reason why the Sounders did so well in USOC.

 

A lot of teams that focus on the USOC are teams that aren't in the running for MLS Cup. If you have a decision to make as an organization of what to focus on and are honest about it some teams will admit they can't keep up with the big boys, and the big boys will play their reserves at USOC because they have bigger fish to fry. There are rare teams that do both, but that may be more of a relic of the past these days.

I would argue that when the Sounders started they won USOCs because they wanted to win SOMETHING in their early MLS years. Maybe long term they wanted to win everything, but they put most of their early efforts into USOC and then gradually transitioned to placing greater emphasis on the SS and MLS Cup. And if you want an example of a team putting 100% into USOC look no further than DC United in 2013. It's not like they had anything else to play for.

Did Dallas' run in the USOC hurt them in the MLS Cup playoffs? I don't know, they were going for the treble so I guess I'll give them a pass. But in recent memory it seems to be an either/or scenario. With the amount of parity in MLS it will take a hell of a team to win both again.

It's most definitely a secondary trophy for MLS teams. I don't want to diminish its value, but 100% of teams would take MLS Cup if they had a choice.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The Sounders haven't changed their tactics with regards to USOC. Like most MLS clubs, they start out playing a mostly reserve side until they start to face MLS sides, at which point they mix in more starters. The big difference is more related to the quality of starters vs. reserves. Since they were a new MLS team, the reserves included more long term veterans and less developing youngsters. Now that they've had more time to develop their own players, acquire younger players, and are focusing more of their payroll on starters, the reserves they are running out is of less quality.

 

Well in 2020 (and half of 2019) you'll get your wish. The team that wins MLS Cup will play in the CCL just 3 months later.

 

I'm not sure the decrease in time increases the chances of winning though? Turnover is likely to be less, but LordRobin's example of the Crew and, by extension, the Timbers are apt examples in this case. Both teams turned out to be pretty bad the very next season after their MLS Cup appearance. I'm not sure either one would have shown well in CCL if they started 3 months after the MLS Cup. Heck, we're seeing that now with the Sounders. With their scoring troubles so far this season, the Sounders would have struggled in CCL if it had started in Feb/March.

 

Mexico's problems at the CWC have a lot to do with also being a league with a high level of parity between clubs. Liga MX is one of the few leagues almost as evenly balanced as MLS.

I don't think the gap between MLS and Mexico is necessarily that big. There's a small gap from starting XI to starting XI, but Mexican clubs tend to have 1) much more depth, and 2) larger home field advantages. Of course, depth matters even when teams are playing their best available players, because injuries and suspensions always happen and because it's useful to be able to make tactical substitutions without worrying about putting a weak link on the field.