MLS' best team EVER

I think statistics show that the 1998 La Galaxy was the best, the 2001 Miami Fusion was a close second and 1999 DC United was third.


And I'll pretty much agree with that. I'm not concerned with the playoffs that MLS uses to tell us who is best, even when one team is clearly better than the other (which has happened in MLS playoffs).

 

Cups count!

This may sound self-serving, but how can one measure greatness without referring to actually winning something of meaning? The supporters' shield is NOT the top prize. MLS Cup is. And other Cups also are relevant - in addition to impressive regular season records.

I will actually fudge it a bit and nominate the DC United Team of 1997-1998 that in '97 posted the best league record and won MLS Cup, narrowly missing out on the domestic double by losing in pks in the US Open Cup final. In '98 the same core group of players won the CONCACAF Champions' Cup (defeating Toluca) and Interamerican Cup (over Vasco de Gama of Brazil who had won the Copa Libertadores - the next best League championship after UEFA Champions' League), while losing in MLS Cup final after posting the second best league record after LA.

If I had to pick a single year, then I'd say that the '98 DCU team was the best - and most accomplished of any MLS team - even though they weren't league record or MLS Cup champions that year.

I just must disagree that the '98 Galaxy could be considered the best - they didn't win when it counted in the pressure-filled playoffs. And the 2001 Fusion also crumbled when it counted. Neither of these teams even made it to the MLS Cup final.

Even in Europe Cups count for a lot - domestic league titles are not the only measure of greatness.

 

Hardware, not wins and losses.

I agree that hardware (trophies/championships) should be the benchmark. If wins and losses were the standard then this thread would be moot, because you can count up wins and losses and there you go. DC United as a club, in terms of history, is by far the most accomplished in MLS, despite their form the last couple years. Demonstrating your ability to win during any "championship" match proves that you have that extra something it takes to win when it counts.

I suppose one could argue that what if a team existed who only won championships but rarely, if ever, won more games, etc. This idea is flawed because you've got to win a significant amount of games to put yourself into contention in the first place.

 

DC United at its best. No boudt about it. Nobodycould beat it here and it had ateam capable of competing with the best... anywhere. Then MLS destroyed it levelling the teams from the bottom. But that is another story...

 

DCU... they are nothing now.... but they have some history... DCU is my pick

 

The teams from the early years of the league are nothing close the caliber of teams in the league today, especially post-contraction. Not the first 11s, and certainly not the benches. Even dc today could beat most teams from 96-98.

That leaves LA '99, CHI '00, KC '00, and MIA '01.

LA '99 - Great team, strength everywhere. LA didn't win the final, but then again they never win the final. No question they were the class of the league in '99.

DC '99 - Just lucky to be in the East with four other wretched teams and mojo'ed Columbus. dc was 8-8 against the other good teams in MLS that year. Hardly the stuff of "best ever" teams. LA had to contend with two great teams and 2 other quality ones. If the league had the curent playoff format dc would have had to go through a hot SJ team and then quality Dallas before LA in the final. That's a totally different proposition than crap Miami and a CLB team that was happy just to get a point anywhere against a team that had a mojo over them. Final point: dc lost to CLB 5-1 in Game 2 of the Semi's.

KC-'00 KC won against everyone, anywhere. If they lost they won the next one by a clear margin. They won when they had to. They were clutch and found winners at the end. The team had the league MVP, 5 all-stars, GK of the year, and the Cup MLP. Coaches will tell you great defense in soccer requires 11 guys. KC set an MLS record for shutouts. They remain the only true #1 to win the sheild and back it up by beating #2.

CHI-'00 - Only MIA in '01 rivaled this team for frontrunning attacking soccer. They find a way to beat Meola in the Cup and they would probably be the single best MLS team.

MIA '01 - '01 supporters shield winners, going away. No team has had fewer losses (5) in an MLS season. They had not only the best statistical offense, but argueably the most stylish MLS has ever seen. They lost to eventual Champion and more rested SJ in the semi's after a highly charged 3 game set with KC. MIA had the misfortune of being drawn with a hot KC. A team racked with injuries who was finally healthy, wanting to show Henderson and Preki that the rest of KC's Championship team still owned the title. Not your typical 8 seed. Mia was the better team in the SJ series but was jobbed by calls and didn't get a bouce the whole series.

SJ '01 - Sorry, a 5-seed can't be considered among the best ever, even if they back it up this year.

LA/SJ '02 - The best 2 teams of a packed and even league. Whoever wins the West and has the better playoff run will have initial bragging rights to the title.

Champion '02 - You have to accept an arguement that there are more quality players in MLS now than at any time previously. Given that, this year's champ if a high seed, although not decidedly better than anyone else in this year of parity, probably should be considered better than any other "great" team in MLS.

Honorable mention to CHI '98. They might have been the best team at any given moment in MLS. After taking half a season to gel with eachother (remember CHI's players had played exactly zero games with eachother previous to joining the Fire) they played dominant, stylish and inspired soccer. Their efforts culminated in a Cup Championship.

 

1999 DC also did.

2000 KC is an unpopular choice, but I would vote for them, if such an election were held. The league just couldn't stop them.

 

Not to mention Open Cup.

 

As for successful AND stylish, I would say DC 99, CHI 00, and MIA 01. Those teams were fun to watch b/c they passed the ball well and went for the attack.

CHI 98, KC 00 , and SJ 01 were successful, but their defensive, often counterattacking style never was pretty to watch (but hey, I know there are people who like that sort of thing...just not my cup of tea).

Basically, if you can win over neutrals with your style of play AND win trophies...well, that's harmony for me.

 

Re: Cups count!

I agree.
I like the SS, but it does not compare to the MLS Cup. That is by far the #1 crown in MLS and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

So not winning the MLS Cup is a huge minus in this equation. I suppose if a team went 28-0-0 and lost the MLS Cup final, I'd rank them best ever, but you can't just be a little better during the regular season and go down as the best ever unless you are champions.

 

That's why I used the word "true". As mentioned dc was in a terrible division and went 8-8 v teams with any pedigree.

 

Re: Hardware, not wins and losses.

Or it proves you were lucky.

If a team wins a championship game, the title they win is 100% valid. But it doesn't really prove anything that any other random one game does.

Sports fans want their interests to be about something more than one it is, and have an irrestistible urge to put a moral quality on great performances under pressure. But to actually believe that is just wish fulfillment.

Let's look at Ronaldo. He was mercilessly criticized for his performance in the '98 Final. People were imputing things about his character. Now he's the hero. Did his character change? Or did he just happen to have a random bad game in '98, and a good game against Germany?

The latter.

And if it is a frequent, frequent occurence for a player to be great in a pressure game one time, then turn around and stink up the next one, then come back and be good again, that tells me that individuals don't have any innate pressure ability.

And if a player doesn't have it, then a collection of players won't either.

The '79 "We Are Family" Pirates...a collection of never-say-die clutch performers.

Except, in '78, they did die. And '80 also. Either they magically acquired this ability for 12 months, then lost it...or they never had any such ability to begin with.

 

1998 D.C. United best MLS team ever

Bruce Arena's 1998 D.C. United team was the best M.L.S. team ever. This team won the CONCACAF Championship & defeated Vasco De Gama to win the Inter-American Cup. United's loss in the M.L.S. Cup to Chicago was a bit of a fluke for a number of reasons. Due to a scheduling quirk, D.C. only had about 3 days to practice and rest after the semi-final series with Columbus. In contrast, the Fire had an entire week to rest/practice for the M.L.S. Cup. Also, D.C. should have been awarded a penalty kick early in the match when Etcheverry was taken down in the box. Finally, Chicago's second goal should've been disallowed due to a blown offsides call.

 

I'd say it's probably the 1997 edition of D.C. United. That team was SCARY good.

Their starting lineup from the Cup Final win over Colorado that year:

Scott Garlick, David Vaudreuil, Eddie Pope, Carlos Llamosa, Jeff Agoos, Richie Williams, Tony Sanneh, John Harkes, Marco Etcheverry, Jaime Moreno, Raul Diaz Arce

 

Jesus...for those of us that didn't follow the league back then, how the hell did they get so stacked?

 

They weren't stacked. Those same players on most other teams are just average. The coach put them together and made it work. The reason they appear to have been stacked is because of that they did in DC, not what they came in with. None of these guys were big names in the league til after what they did from 96-99.

NY and NE were more stacked with "known" players, they just choked as they continue to do.

 

Re: Cups count!

I'll agree that "being the best team" should include all games played and not just the regular season, but is making it to the final really proof of superiority? Were the Rapids of 97 one of the 2 best teams in the league? No. Did you enjoy the play of the 2000 Wizards? Most people say the style they and the 98 Chicago team showed was a poor brand of soccer and hurt the sellability of the league.

Basically, I'm saying that results matter, but they aren't ALL that matters.

Miami 01, LA 98, TB 96 are all great examples of exciting, attack minded teams that were great fun to watch.

Miami 2001 gets my vote for being a great, fluid, attacking team that had style and a winning attitude. Losing in a rough 3 game series to the eventual Cup holders doesn't diminish my opinion of them.

Too bad Miami hadn't won and it would have been San Jose who would have been contracted.

 

The 97-98 DCU team. BAR NONE the best team the league has seen to date.

 

Except for the 2000 Wizards.

 

Unless you saw them kicking the crap outta everyone*, with style-grace-flair, you wouldn't understand the calibur of play Ray and his lads put on the field last year in Miami. The league badly misses having a 'glamour team' like last year's Fusion. Don't tell me having 9 teams within, like 10 points of each other indicates anything but mediocrity. ..."but it's sooo competitive (Blah, blah, blah)"

Too bad our owner took his ball and went home.


*except Metros

 

Man, you've got to get over this.

 

There are two ways of looking at this:

1. Who is the best team relative to their competition at that time. For this, I would have to say that the 1998 DCU team was simply awesome. They totally steamrolled the league. What's less known is that EVERY regular season game featured a different starting lineup. That's right 32 lineups in 32 games.

2. Who is the absolute best team? Maybe Miami 2001 or perhaps San Jose or LA this year. The point is that the league is improving so fast that nearly every year is a quantam leap over previous ones.

Sachin

 

Dennis and Slacker got it right, that 97-98 DC team was special. They had the most prolific scorers Lassiter & Moreno. Etch was in his prime. They had role players in Gori, Sennah & ABMOD. They had our best backline duo in Pope & a 28yr old Agoos(b4 the mental handicap & gravity boots took over). Let us not forget, they had the best tactical mind in the MLS, now Nats coach Bruce Arena, to direct them over traditional power houses: Toluca & Vasco.

LA never had that kind of roster strength and has yet to hoist the cup, while Chicago won in a fluke w/ less skilled players. IMHO that DC team could've played w/ any club team in the world and represented well that year.

Only after MLS contracted to 10 teams did the level of play compare to the clockwork orange form of DC. They played efficient, counter-attacking soccer. Juega Bonita.