When you puncture the ceiling, it doesn't mean that you will now permanently live on top of the house. MLS is fine - LAFC making the final reaffirms that.
An MLS team lost in a continental final, therefore MLS sucks and is doomed. Imagine thinking that Serie A is worthless if Inter loses to Manchester City this weekend.
Yeah my poulint is that citing that 5 more MLS matches is slight misleading. Two of those 5 games were this week and in direct conflict with these matches. One was the original Rose Bowl traffico which was rained out. There were two weekends avoided/moved: The Saturday between the CCL semis vs Philly and last weekend which LAFC was set for a bye. With open cup and midweek games kicking in, there are more than a few non-CCL teams already complaining about congestion too.
Yeah, you'll want to skip Serie A references on Twitter entirely if Inter lose on Saturday. **curls into fetal position**
Probably belaboring the point now, but: What the hell, LAFC? That was, based on the eye test & scoreboard - don't know that much about the underlying numbers - the WORST MLS performance in a CCL Final by far. The phrase "ni metieron las manos" (roughly, "they didn't even bother them") comes to mind...
LAFC effectively only had one week with multiple MLS games (May 14, 18, 21 - which was their last MLS game, thereby giving them 10 days of rest before the Champions League games). The CCL games would have made it multiple weeks with multiple games, but that is on Cherundolo to properly rotate players. It's not the fault of the MLS schedule. (I'm not including US Open Cup as LAFC did not play starters in those - but then neither did most MLS teams). For Cherundolo to complain that the schedule was part of the problem is ludicrous. Any schedule-related problem for LAFC was that Cherundolo did not manage the player rotation very well. Leon was greatly disadvantaged compared to LAFC in that Leon hadn't played for 3.5 weeks.
There hasn't been a blowout loss *in the final*, which is what Paul's post was talking about. We've had maybe a blowout win from Seattle, but every other MLS-LMX final (aggregate or even single games) has been decided by two goals or less. In fact, Seattle 3-0 Pumas and America 4-2 Montreal are the only single games in the MLS-LMX finals ever decided by more than one goal. To Paul's point... I think Montreal's second-game-second-half collapse was pretty darn bad. But yeah, not sure if LAFC really ever showed up for this year's final series.
I don't have any "eye test" memory of the match, but it seems like Montreal giving up 4 second-half goals in 15 minutes at home, to go from 2-1 to 2-5 in the aggregate score, might have been worse.
I suppose they could have punted 1 or 2 MLS matches in the earlier CCL weeks, but the place LAFC has depth is CB and they lost 3/4 of them over the last few weeks. Before they all started yesterday, some had longer layoffs than Leon. I think Cherundolo panicked after the away leg, but it's hard to judge the formation change when the margins are slim - Bouanga or Long finishing an early chance and he looks like a genius. Very similar to USA v Uruguay, Leon were mostly mistake free at the back. If there are big conclusions to draw I'd say: Vela is no longer DP level contributor Teams used to having a talent advantage in every game they play, struggle to adjust when that's not the case LAFC's depth is a bit overrated, Chicho Arango was missed, but it's not clear whether they can actually fit a third DP under the cap If Leon is more talented than LAFC, I think it is hard to argue any team in MLS would have the talent advantage - that's systemic and a function of the roster rules, not just the total $ investment
I agree with some of what Cherundolo's comments were, and disagree on one them as well. He's spot on about the roster rules needing to be modified in order to allow teams to build actual quality depth. Academy kids are nice and all, however, they're still teenagers playing against seasoned pros..... That may work in MLS league play, but against the bigger clubs in regional competitions it isn't going to cut it. As far as the schedule? Not buying that one. LAFC had the easiest road to the CCL final since RSL's run. That's literally Cherundolo's job. Manage the roster for the schedule of games. Rotate to keep players fresh, etc. Every team in MLS is dealing with schedule congestion this season between League play, USOC and League's Cup. Every teams has to deal with injuries during the course of their season. Not to mention LAFC knew that their schedule was going to be packed before the season even started. Thorington takes some blame here too, build a better roster.*. I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that it sure seems as if LAFC doesn't make many trips to the East Coast for MLS League Play for the few cross conference matchups...... For instance they've played in Subaru Park ONCE in league play (it'll be twice this September) since they've entered the league. Philly has played at BMO at least 3 times in the regular season now. The same is true for the Galaxy btw. This is a league issue. MLS, it seems isn't as fair to some teams when it comes to Travel. Now, would the schedule be easier to manage IF the roster rules allowed teams to spend $15M across the roster more evenly? Absolutely. No arguments there. If you want to be the CCL Champs, sacrifices may have to be made. Seattle climbed to that summit. They get the glory. LAFC should be commended for trying to win everything. It should be difficult to do that, btw. I will say LAFC looked tired in both games against Leon. They put a ton of intensity and energy into the first 15 minutes on Sunday Night. When they failed to score on their two great chances, it allowed Leon to grow into the game. Then Leon scored, and it just seemed as if that really deflated LAFC. I haven't seen that before from them. They almost always seem to ratchet it up at BMO in the final 20 minutes and just pound teams into submission. Leon deserved to win, they played great, and were clearly the better team in this series. The three rescheduled league games due to their CCL quest, and the weather rescheduled LA Galaxy Game are going to make the next month an interesting time for LAFC. How do they respond to this disappointment? Granted most of these game will be played at home or on the west coast, but this is going to be a gut check for a team that really hasn't had much disappointment in the past 18 months. MLS teams aren't going to show them any pity that's for sure.
Agree with (almost) all this. Slight disagreement about the travel, since they try to alternate and they skipped 2020/2021 for regional scheduling (LAFC hosted right before the pandemic and that's the difference in the series after this season). East coast teams have easier travel just due to density. How many eastern conference teams are closer to Philly than Seattle is to LA? Going forward, I bet they rotate significantly tomorrow vs Atlanta. Maybe the next two midweek matches as well. Expect Ordaz and Duenas to get minutes.
I'm talking overall performance in the Final. That Montreal - an unspectacular MLS team on paper (Nacho Piatti +10) - grabbed a point from the AZTECA (and probably should've had more, if the ref didn't chicken out of giving a DOGSO red), and had the inside track on the title all the way through halftime of the return leg. Now, theirs was the biggest collapse, no doubt; but in this latest Final, at NO point in the entire series did LAFC have the advantage. Only 2018 Toronto can say the same; but as much as it's forgotten b/c of the end result, Toronto actually won the leg in GDL. LAFC's the only MLS CCL Finalist to bow out with no advantage and 0 points; hell, they've now lost 3 straight matches in the CCL Final. Eh... LAFC didn't have this problem in 2020, nor Toronto in 2018. Lackluster goalkeeping did both of them in, along with TFC being overwhelmed with injuries along the backline.
2020 they got smacked in Leon, but totally controlled the home game. They were still fortunate to get 3 goals to overturn the tie. Then it was all neutral games and Vela was much closer to elite then vs now. I agree with the injuries in defense hurting alot. Even missing Acosta for the first leg hurts. He has played the 6 at the Azteca for the US. His experience and defense would have been a major plus.
I've been saying for quite some time that MLS needs to change or increase its salary cap/roster rules and I always get shut down here. Not that it matters if anyone agrees with me or not because what we want as fans won't matter to MLS. They do what they want at the end. But still, MLS roster building rules are so restrictive. GM say it, coaches say it and fans say it. They work in MLS and are designed for MLS only but once you are playing Internationally MLS teams are handicapped. MLS is spending a lot, don't get me wrong, but due to the rules it isn't distributed proportionally. MLS teams can be so much better without the need to spend more than what they are spending now if some simple changes are made. But no, they'll probably come up with some U18 Initiative player rule with some restrictions saying that you can sign 3 of them but only if your 2nd DP is under 20 years old. Or something ridiculous like that and everyone will be saying MLS is doing it because they want to be a "selling league". I don't know about you guys but I want to win, want to watch good soccer, want to see competitive games and don't care much if Seattle, FC Dallas or Chicago sold a kid for $15M.
Just wiping TAM/GAM, roster designations (U22, YDP, DP) and setting a spending floor and ceiling would do it. Have a separate net transfer cap if you want. The league as a whole spends too much resources trying to navigate and enforce it's rules. Imagine if they spent that on scouting instead! It also is impossible to talk cap space when they don't publicize the cap hits. Could LAFC add another DP? Technically, but we don't know their AM balance or if they have the cap space for a 600k budget charge. YDP is closer to 250k but still....
IMO many of us agree that the Salary Budget/roster rules in MLS need to be tweaked/changed in order for the league as a whole to grow. The real question is how and to what extent will/should MLS modify its' current roster rules? On the one hand, raising the salary budgets by any amount NOT spelled out in the current CBA, isn't going to happen. They'd have to renegotiate the CBA, I'm sure the owners would love to renegotiate NOW instead of AFTER 2026. I also understand the belief and maybe fear of the league that some teams would just take that extra space and pay current players more. Which, isn't necessarily a bad thing in concept, however the goal should ALWAYS be to bring in better players and keep the current high performing "home grown" players in the league. The different roster mechanisms in place currently aren't necessarily bad either. They could be simplified or streamlined though. IMO having the different mechanisms allows teams to use different strategies to build their rosters, which is a good thing. A balam=nce needs to be struck though. Giving the higher spending teams more room to spend their money as they see fit on more of the roster, while also allowing the rest of the league to spend more across their roster, and also sign more Academy Players, while keeping some semblance of competitive balance in place. That's the real trick here. Maybe there's a sliding scale for a players Budget charge based on their salary. Maybe Players earning between $1.5M-$3M have a budget charge of $650K. Players making $3M-$5M have a budget charge of $800K, Players earning $5M-$8M have a budget charge of $950K. Players making more than $8M have a budget charge of $1.5M. I would keep the DP rule around as well., and players would count as a DP if they cost more than $2M per season when a transfer fee is involved. Maybe add a fourth? Or just add one Marquee Player slot? This would be reserved for a special case player such as a Messi, Ronaldo, Ibra, Beckham, etc. A player that moves the needle beyond the playing field. This spot would have strict criteria too, and would be subject to MLS HQ approval. Set the Salary Budget at $15M, still have the allocation money to allow teams to buy down players budget charges, etc. Rosters should be expanded to 34 spots. 22 Senior budget spots (cost towards the Salary Budget. 12 off budget roster spots (Home Growns, league minimums, draft picks, etc.). Eliminate the league wide mandates that all teams have a youth academy, and do away with the Home Grown Territories and protected lists. Allow the teams who want to build through their academy to do so. Allow those teams who don't want to run a youth academy to use that money as they see fit. Maybe give the non academy MLS teams some extra garber bucks to start each season? Then cap the budget charge for a home grown player at $500K, which wouldn't come into to play until they reach a certain salary level and have to be on the budgeted senior roster. With a few minor tweaks and changes to the roster rules teams would be able to build rosters with deeper talent. This would allow teams to field possibly 10 or more players making close to or more than $1M a season. It would allow the teams that want to spend more to do so, yet not to a point that they'd run away with the league every year. This would allow teams to really go after every competition that they enter each season (MLS, Leagues Cup, USOC, CCL, CWC).
The CBA is a very good point. My thought is that if you are developing and selling academy players, that would be a credit to the transfer budget (if you treat it separately from salary). Maybe this budget could be "tradeable" or you have an internal transfer market. Selling homegrown within the league would help too. It would be very hard to take off the guard rails on spending without making it much harder on a team like Philly to build through the academy and some value transfers. I think you would need to compensate by having hyperspecific styles and chemistry. But overall the players filling out the roster will cost more in order to compete.
I actually think the opposite would happen. A smart Sporting Director can easily assemble a very good team, possibly even a great one if they able to find and pay 10-12 players $700K-$1,5M each. Now, granted that's much easier to do when a team has a clear cut playing philosophy. That allows them to target specific players with the specific skill sets that are required to succeed in how they want to play. Doing away with the academy territories and restrictions would also bolster the academies at Philly, Dallas, NYCFC, RBNY, etc even more.
If there is a spending floor (higher than the current), I'd agree with you. If the only impact is spending teams spending more then threading the needle with Sporting Director efficiencies is moot. Philly has done so well building their roster...while barely touching U22 slots right? that's a choice, and I don't think leaving mechanisms on the table makes them the best they could be.
So? There are other MLS teams that have chosen NOT to use the U22 slots either. Philly signs kids from their academy AND they play them. They view the U22 spots as taking away from their talented Academy kids, who also cost them less. Teams should be able to build their roster as they see fit. There shouldn't be one way to build in MLS.