Metz, France is a pretty big club. They loaned Gooch to Stanard Liege, Belgium with an option to buy and Standard Liege just in the last week or so bought out his contract. They probably didn't buy him just to sell him in 2 months so I'm guessing he'll be there at least until next August. Gooch would start on the majority of MLS teams, probably on all (maybe out of position). Russell is hard to compare since he hasn't had any national team callups until the upcoming one. He was drafted by the Galaxy but probably would have gone higher if commited to MLS. He was teammates in the same class at Duke as Evan Whitfield IIRC and I don't recall him being better at that point. He's starting on a team in the Champions League and doing pretty well. Haven't seen him play but I'm pretty sure he'd start in MLS. To try and answer the post above the one I'm replying to, Gooch would be in the USMNT plans eventually if in MLS but might be developing quicker in Europe though I doubt it's much of a difference. In MLS, he'd be more available for games and might have gotten more looks sooner, but in Europe there might be an argument he's sooner into the qualifying plans for the USMNT. Probably won't ever know. 5 years ago I'd given the edge to Europe for development. Now it's gotten a lot closer. Don't think many have seen Russell play often. I haven't seen him since college and don't remember much hype when he went pro (not following soccer that closely though) so I have no idea how he's doing relatively to if he was in MLS.
` NO, one of their 3rd place finishes was in the US in 1994. Check your facts. They still have taken 37 of 51 Top 3 finishes 72%... plenty outside of Europe - in fact, they still have the most Top 3 finishes in tournaments outside of Europe. The point of comparing the performance of a continent is to evidence the depth of the leagues/players. Sure, EU permit rules may make it easier, but their still competing with 50 OTHER EUROPEAN nations for those player slots... Besides, there might be plenty of reasons why it's "unfair" but that doesn't invalidate the end result. I'm not arguing "why it is" - rather "what it is". I think this is the BEST evidence of just how strong the continent is. You might think MLS is much greater caliber than the lowly Greek league, but in Europe you don't take any of these nations/leagues for granted. People from countries who actually have 3rd place finishes or higher. What do you suggest as an alternate, more accurate comparison... opinions on BigSoccer? Hey, it'd piss me off too if in 1994 on my home turf a tiny country from Europe managed to come and score the most goals of the tournament and barely lose to Brazil on PK's in the Semi-final... More than half the players on that team played in the Swedish league - some of them had 'day jobs' as school teachers (among other things). In some respects... yes. A World Cup trophy is a big enough deal that winning one puts you in a pretty special club - I wish Sweden had one, but Pele (but he's no good right? he played in '58... what possible impact could he have had on the sport?) was introduced to the world in that one. Uruguay has performed well over the past couple of decades in some of the U-17 and U-20/21? tournaments... I don't know why it doesn't translate into better showings at the time of the big dance. The point is, the thread began as a foregone conclusion that MLS produces teams that are on parity with some of the "minor" European leagues (like Norway, Belgian, then someone added in Sweden), and I don't think there is any evidence of that... and possibly some evidence that makes that questionable. Results on the international stage don't show it. Results by country don't show it. Results by players those leagues produce. So, I don't think you can claim parity with a league for no reason... They don't play head to head.
Was going to say "international stage" - they don't play each other on the international stage. But then you say "don't play head to head" so I guess you realize that. So neither side has direct evidence. Do the core of the national teams of these countries play in domestic leagues? Were they really produced by the domestic leagues? Only way to compare is players in each others leagues. Wade Barrett, Brian West, Robbie Russell and several others are listed in Norway https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143545 Dunseth was waived by MLS and plays for Bodens if that helps. Obviously these leagues can pay more or at least offer a stage to other teams since Barrett and West chose them over MLS. Not too many players from Norway or Belgium in MLS right now (none). A few Swedes have been in MLS and I think 1 from Norway that I can remember (maybe a couple more), generally at the end of their careers. I don't know what division some of those players at the above link play at but a lot of them are there cause they can't make senior rosters in MLS. It's subjective and most here find the talent in MLS comparable to most teams in those leagues (not the top few teams from each). I haven't been convinced otherwise. National team success means little to me in this discussion. edit: Oh, is anyone here pissed at Sweden's success in scoring goals in 94? Anyone here disappointed with losing to Brazil in the round of 16 (by one goal right?) after Ramos (probably the best field player then) was brutalized? Anyone here jealuous of the potential of these smaller European leagues for future growth, jealous right now? I don't think there's any evidence making this questionable. Just a lack of evidence in general. Put these leagues games on TV here and maybe we'd actually be able to judge.
Having the most slots of all the confederations help alot, mainly because Erupeans play each other to qualify for later stages. A CONCACAF player have to be a lot better than the cometing european to be chosen, that's the point. Yet, Greece is still as bad as ever. Where does Spain and Portugal fit then? I would really like Mexico to have that luck, we top the Group of Dead just to get eliminated on pk the next round, If we only could draw Saudi Arabia that time...
Sweden drew the Brazilians 1-1 in group play and lost on PK's in the Semis... they went on to smash Bulgaria something like 6-2 or 6-1 (yes, Stoichkov was in his prime then unlike his time in the MLS). As of the 1994 World Cup no two teams had played eachother more in World Cup play than Sweden-Brazil (12 times as of 1994)... very unlucky for the Swedes. I agree that there is a lack of conclusive, direct evidence either way (while I think the circumstancial evidence doesn't favor MLS... hence I think it is presumptuous to assume that they are instantly better - as some put forth. Personally, I'd rather see games with the European B-league champions and MLS champions... it would be more competitive (assuming both brought their "A" games) than the Real Madrid plan to play the All-Stars (a waste of time and money). RM sends their 2nd team and aren't particularly "up" for the game... MLS All-stars don't play regularly together so it's not like they have any team cohesion. But I don't think too many people in the US would pay for a Rosenberg/CopenhagenFC/MalmöFF match vs. Columbus/KC/LA... although I would. The games where MLS teams play Mexican league teams in exhibitions are much more fun... sure the Mexican league is better, but the USMNT and MLS clubs have pulled off some surprises - they seem to play their absolute best at times against Mexico. (people can make whatever "they send their B-team" excuses all they want...)
Brazil in group play was no cake walk for Sweden in '94... Sweden had to play in "the Group of Death" in 2002 - England, Argentina (top CONMEBAL qualifier for '02), Nigeria (Olympic medalists and winnders of Africas Cup)... We've had our fair share of tough groups to advance from. Sweden won the group only to lose on a fluke golden goal in Overtime to Senegal after Alexandersson hit the cross bar 30 seconds before... Hey, Mexico has had their fair share of luck - I had you guys picked in '02 to play in the final... you had a manageable group and when you advanced you just had to beat the US - what happened? In 1998, I was in Mexico when you stopped playing for 10 min. against Germany in the Quarter-finals... Mexico (with Spain & England) have had some bad luck... but it's not like Swedens gotten off easy with having to play the Brazilians practically every time they've gone to the World Cup. Cheers.
Just wait for the next set of embarrassing Champions Cup results. The front page will be plastered with threads... PS: Speaking of, the Coconut Bankers from San Juan Jablome are about to qualify for the 2005 edition.
Like I said the style of play can make otherwise excellent players look poor (newcastle) and make other good players look like real quality (Anderlect). These two guys are playing with people who have well developed football minds and they are henced forced to play up to that level. It brings their talent out. In MLS unless they are on the right teams that challenge will not exist.
I think you are taking this way too personally. We are talking about football not slapping our penises on the table to see whose is bigger. Frankly I find it kind of humorous a person would want to compare the results of a country that has had a established football system for decades with a country that didn't even have a serious profesional league. Thats what I call reaching for straws. At any rate stick to the football and leave personal stuff somewhere else.
No they didn't ... they lost 1-0 in regulation. I think the actual total is 7, but that certainly is a large number ... enough for a good team to win one.
Honestly, I wasn't upset - I was just having some fun... Apparently, if it sounded like I was bothered by it... I'm sorry. Isn't part of the forums to poke a little fun at eachother? What did I say that was personal? I thought we were just having a little fun - he was pointing out what a loser I was for citing Sweden in '58... and I was pointing out that it was better than nothing. If it was taken differently, my apologies.
You're right... I remembered it wrong - that's the problem with relying on my memory. Anyway, they played 1-1 in the Group stage. Well, there are definitely better teams than Sweden and definitely better ones who have played against Brazil... but what does your point say about all the teams who never managed to play them OR beat them OR draw them when it counted (friendlies don't count... at least not to FIFA). Too few nations have the dubious distinction of playing them when it counts.
Does the 1998 Gold Cup count? Romario was playing. Partisanship aside, Sweden has had an awful lot of good teams throughout its history, and as you pointed out, its clubs continue to develop first-rate players. Still, listing its track record of exports is an unfair comparison with MLS, a league whose first real signs of talent production didn't appear until early 2001, when Mathis and Wolff took charge. Today, exports like Bocanegra and Beasley, and probably Donovan, are beginning to show MLS's development. You can point to our past exports and get a fair indication that our league wasn't so hot in 1999, but it'll take a little while for the next wave of exports to confirm how far things have progressed.
You're not making any sense. If Europe was harder to qualify from, then that means that team X would just miss in Europe, but would make it here. And if THAT were true, then the worst Euro teams at the World Cup would consistently be better than the last team to qualify from CONCACAF. Which isn't true. QED. Overall, Europe is no harder to qualify from than CONCACAF. If you're in the Poland-Scotland group, it's easier. If you're in the Holland-Ireland-Portugal group, it's harder. It averages out. Everything you wrote about the good Euro teams is irrelevant. When UNLV was spectacular, that didn't change the fact that the Big West wasn't one of the top 5 conferences in the nation. If you plopped Brazil into North America, that wouldn't change the quality of the US or Mexico or Costa Rica or Belize one iota, in the real world. In your pretend world, getting to count Brazil's achievements makes Canada better. But it doesn't.
No, Pele's no good. He's not as good as Freddy Adu, a benchwarmer in MLS. I mean, haven't you seen that Sierra Mist ad? Now, Pele's probably better than *me*, but he couldn't even make an A-League team.
IMO these European countries' leagues are better overall than MLS: Spain, England, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland, Turkey, Russia Leagues that are at about MLS level: Czech Republic, Ukraine, Poland, Austria, Norway, Israel, Denmark, Sweden Leagues slightly below MLS level: Serbia & Montenegro, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Hungary
Wow, you're enough of an expert on 25 European leagues to compare them to MLS!!! You should get a job writing about soccer, you're obviously one of the world's leading experts. Or you're just making sh** up that sounds good. One or the other.
I'm only making educated guesses here. I'm basing that on how those leagues' teams perform in European competition, how top-heavy those leagues are, approximately how much they pay, the talent they've produced, the talent they're able to attract, how ex-MLS players have done in those leagues and vice-versa, along with my own observations of the level of play in those leagues, limited as they are. I've spent 12 years in Europe and follow European football very closely. Still, like I said that's just my best guess. I don't pretend to be an expert.
I wasn't discounting MLS... or if I did, that was not my intention - I'm a season-ticket holder and want nothing more than for MLS to be a smashing success. I just thougth the people are quick to discount the 2nd (or 3rd) tier leagues in Europe and I don't think most people have any clue as to the development of those leagues. They don't follow them. They don't know the players they produce. They don't know their accomplishments in Europe... so to assume MLS is instantly better is naive or "drinking your own Kool-Aid" - MLS might be on parity, but it isn't just assumed.
I don't think many have claimed MLS is "better". Many might assume their about the same. But really what's the big deal if they're wrong? It's difficult to compare a league with a salary cap and paritity within to most every league in Europe unless the bottom teams in the foreign league are clearly better than the best in MLS.
Why do every thread about norway go over on being about Sweden? hehe.. anyway, what league is the best is hard to say, but RBK is and have always been the best team in Scandinavia. No doubt! No other team have had so many european appearances!! (Or won the norwegian league 12 times in a row..) And for those of you who were discussing Russell, I would say Russell is a good player, might even be of national level.. But in the "Tippeligaen" I would say he's about average..!! Nothing more, nothing less...But there is always room for improvement, so Russell could most likely one day become of "more then average"..
MLS and Norway teams would play head to head on most days I think. But we're getting better. The thing about soccer is just about any team can compete on any given day. Isn't that way sometimes teams from lower leagues make it deep into tournaments? Guido