I think you're right as far as his approach to the game - saving energy for key moments - but I do think he's had to adjust his game over the years to changes in both MLS (better defending) and himself (getting older). He was a speed demon in the first few years of the league, and could get by solely on being both superlatively skilled and so much faster than the defenders in this league. Now he's not nearly as fast, so he has to outsmart his opponents some more. For the record, I didn't think Jaime had a great game against RBNY, but showed up when he needed to against Chivas and was very very good on Saturday. And I do think he needs a few more games off this season than he's had in the past.
Horse shit. I hate seeing people continue to type this all over BS, what nonsense - all the games mean something - the only way you can make games during the regular season "meaningless" is by winning so many of them early that you can coast a few times during the (relatively) long regular season. And our playoff format is 100% better than the one in the EPL where the season champ has probably already been decided half way through. I was on Jaime after the Red Bull game, but I saw no problems in this game.
I think we need to clarify what we are discussing. Obviously, Jamie needs to start and to play the great majority of minutes for reasons that resasonable people don't need laid out. Greta leader, great goalscorer, etc. I think what is up for discussion is if he needs to play 90 minutes of every game regardless of his stamina or age. It does worry me when I see him walking, or standing with his hands on his hips, in the 85th minute of the game. It would be smart to give walker, or whoever or our many talented forwards is still on the bench a run for five minutes, rather then give him the 90. Barring injury, we are going to have a fresh, talented forward on the bench at the end of the game and need to use that asset. It is just smart to do.
At least it was decided on 30 or so matches that counted toward winning it, rather than the MLS format which uses about 10-15 at best. I've made the argument you labeled as horse excrement a few times and my primary purpose for doing so is to shorten the season, and make games more meaningful to the fans as well as everyone else.
The league finally did something this offseason that might help. The two slots for the Champions Cup will go to the regular season points leader and the MLS Cup champ. Furthermore, if a team finishes with the most points and wins the MLS Cup (a double of sorts), the "second most points" team will get the other slot, not the loser of the MLS Cup. This won't fix the whole problem, but might improve those previously meaningless games in September when the playoffs are already determined.
FB sounds particularly feisty today -- mebee he needs to be gettin' bizzy. I agree that the competition committee has made an important distinction this season. What is really exciting is what 2007 might bring. Most (yes, FB, most) folks agree that reg season games need to be more meaningful. GM
I think a better solution is to not let almost all of the teams into the playoffs. It still pisses me off to no end that LA not only made it but won it. That crap makes this league the joke of the world.
true, I wish they only let 6 teams into the playoffs UNTIL they expanded - but after we get two more teams into the league, the number of teams will be fine. They just chose to get the playoff money early, and you really can't blame them for that since the league needed money early. I still disagree that any of your arguments make any of the regular season games unimportant. In any playoff format, a lower-seeded team can upset the "best" teams - that's what makes it exciting. That's why you let a GMU into the NCAA tourney. Last year was a weird one and messed up because BOTH expansion teams were placed into the West - giving a bad, bad LA team free pass into the playoffs. Ask NJ and KC how meaningless their regular season losses were
I haven't seen the financials but I really doubt the playoffs netted the league much, if any profit. The attendance at playoff games is abyssmal. Surely (notice I didn't spell it Shirley) you remember the rather lean-looking "21,000" (cough, 17thousand cough, cough) that Cowlumbus managed to scrape up for the MLS Cup final in 2001? Perhaps we can agree that, individually, they are relatively unimportant? That was exciting all right, and you know why? The friggin games actually meant something. They were pursuing a championship. If the championship is decided by total points, each regular season game is a playoff game (hyperbolically speaking, of course). GM
The quote about the good forward hanging around all game for the one or two moments of brilliance only works if the forward is fit to hang around all game. As the forward tires, his chances of helping his team or being in the right place at the right time for his moment of bliss decreases. Moreno hustles fairly well all game; I don't see him going after everything in sight like Ben Olsen, but he doesn't slack off noticeably either. But as the season wears on, he will have less and less in the tank after 75 minutes versus a younger player, and if Nowak doesn't start platooning him and looking for someone up top with his distribution skills, then Moreno will get less and less useful by June and in the long hot summer he will be sorely missed, especially as DC will have the chance to make up some good ground on teams like NE and KC who will lose more to the WC team than they will. There is a tactical issue here, and we will only be competitive in September/October if we get all our depth some minutes and preserve Moreno & Gomez now. The games vs the poorer teams are great opportunities for this and there will be plenty of them; 4 vs the Crew, 2 vs RSL at least, maybe the Red Bull games if they don't get their act together.
hyperbolically, yes - but in real life, no - it just makes the last part of the season completely meaningless for all but maybe 3 teams if you're lucky. One if you're the EPL I mean, after all, was Columbus the best team in the league in 2004? No, we were - but in the "meaningful games" measure, they would have been crowned champion, even though they played negative, ugly soccer, they did get the most points (lots of boring ties). I also agree MLS didn't make a ton of coin on playoffs, but some teams could and did (DC, columbus, fire, la, revulsion), and most owners thought they would, which is why the format was set that way. Personally, I would have (and still might) go with 6 teams with the conference point leaders getting a bye the first round. The first time DC finishes 4th, I will, of course, change my mind on that as well