Unbiased Observation of MLS

Its true. I took my folks to a game two season ago and my mom of all people said the same thing - the slower speed.

I think there answers are simple.

Less skill / Less talent

The reasons are far more complex and costly to solve.

Average salary & Salary Cap
Relatively small rosters makes for a smaller player pool
MLS is only 8 years old

That's just for starters.

That said, MLS is making quick progress. In 5 years when all these 17 year old rookies have some experience, I don't think this will be an issue anymore.

I will also say that I don't know if it is me and my expectations or watching EPL all winter or fake grass, but MLS play has been exceedingly sloppy so far. Its early, but I thought it would be better.

 

1. The EPL is one of the top 3 leagues in the world (some consider it THE top league in the world). MLS players are just not up to that standard yet.

2. The fans are some of the best in the world - and really help push the players to a higher level. MLS fans are great - but the passion across the board is not there yet - it's growing though each season as the supports group start infecting others who attend with their enthusiasm.

3. The pitches in the EPL are of the putting green quality that are rarely seen in MLS. Next time you watch an MLS game - notice how many small hops a ball takes during a pass. Even on the best pitches you can see players not entirely confident that the ball won't suddenly make a squirly hop right before they have trapped the ball.

4. The EPL is at the end of it's long season. Players are at their sharpest. MLS just kicked off - and is barely two weeks old. Teams are adjusting to their players and the new ones that are lining up against them. The level of play in MLS always improves by the playoffs - and you see more passing games with the higher EPL speed level that makes for an exciting match.

 

It's not just skill, it's also athleticism. And it's all explained by the most obvious of reasons -- money.

The EPL pays far, far more money, therefore, it attracts far better talent.

My friend's Porsche cost $80,000, and guess what, it's a nicer car than my 94 Honda.

This is not rocket science, folks.

 

Lack of experience is definitly showing through the lack of quality plays. The play so far this season has been pretty sloppy. So many turnovers in midfield. The players play with heart, power, and speed but their lack of control, passing accuracy, and imagination kill the games. Several times I've seen players who do not know how to find open spaces to move the ball up. Several times they passed it back to the Defence only to have the Defence pass the ball back and forth to eachother not really sure who to pass it up to. Lack of experience and lack of skill is what makes MLS games a pain to watch sometimes. But no worries, 5 generations from now (if MLS is still around) we'll start seeing some good football.

 

Thing is, if you watched the Galaxy-Metros match last weekend, you saw a far more entertaining match than, say the CHI-DC match. It was fast paced, lots of good passing, quality shots on goal (and some great saves, too). A solid 90 (well, I guess 100) minutes of entertainment.

But this is too often the exception to the rule in MLS. Columbus put on a very entertaining show on saturday, too. But the Revs were almost painful to watch. My hope is that at least some of this is due to the season being so young.

 

Add the point about the players being fairly inexperienced, and you pretty much have everything covered.

 

to the original poster, and to reiterate: you and your fatherinlaw watched one of the worst MLS matches of this or any other season. a real snoozefest between two teams with lots of new players who have yet to form themselves into cohesive units.

but as mentioned, other games were much more exciting: the aforementioned Crew, the Metros v. Galaxy, and the Quakes v. Wizards were much more impressive games.

every year it seems to me when the MLS season starts people are disappointed in teh spped and quality of play. some of this is objective, as the speed and quality are not of the highest standard; some of this is relative, as we've all been watching teh EPL and other leagues all winter so of course in comparision it doesn't seem so good.

but for me, it's all been good, though the DC v. Fire game was only mildly so.

 

I think there are two other points worth mentioning. MLS is two games into the season, while the EPL is nearing its finale. That can make a difference, especially with teams like DC and Chicago, which experienced considerable roster turnover during the offseason.

The other point -- and I hate to side with Sepp "I'm not for sale, just for rent" Blatter, but here goes -- is that MLS doesn't play enough games in a year's time to make their team as highly proficient as they could be. The learning curve is much less steep for players who were just training together a month or two ago, as opposed to players who haven't seen each other for four months.

 

Tell your dad to watch an EPL game with the sound down, and then watch an MLS game with the sound down. I'll bet he'll be surprised at how similar the games look.

The atmosphere does have an effect on the viewing of a game.

 

I agree with all the comments on this thread. However, I've seen plenty of substandard EPL matches over the years. Trust me, a West Brom-Sunderland match will not be a work of art.

 

I noticed this too. On shootout you had those two choices and while I started off switching back and forth, it wasn't long before Galaxy-Metros was clearly going to be the better game.

Though I do think the game lost a bit of its lustre late (fatugue?) It certaibly looked like a high standard of play (the Metros at times looked brilliant with Clark, DiGiamarino, Mathis, Moreno, Guevara and occassionally Magee stringing together passing sequences well into the double digits) for most of the game though.

 

I'm betting today's Leeds-Fulham match isn't going to be one of the classics. However, the fact that both teams are WAY closer to the drop zone than they were planning on being may make for a bit more drama than you'd otherwise see from them at this point in the season. And to reiterate, MLS teams haven't reached the point where they really have to play for something yet, even if it's just a more advantageous seeding for the playoffs.

 

While the EPL and MLS can't even be compared to one another for many years to come, a mjor reason for the pace of the English game is the climate. This is a true statement. The EPL is probably the fastest league in the World. There many talented players in South American leagues, but playing so close to the equator usually means they counter attack very fast, but don't fly up and down the fields like the EPL. It's too hot to go balls out for 90 minutes. The climate helps the pace of the EPL.

 

They are also sometime frozen, only sand (see Leeds vs Charlton this year) and the goal box is badly worn out of some by the end of the season.

 

I agree with a few of the earlier posters in the sentiment that the quality varies widely in MLS from game to game. I have watched truly quality matches, and then I have seen crap as well. It is merely down to various factors, such as the fields, the system employed against various teams, and the match conditions. That said, the EPL is far more consistent, and rightly so, given the quality and standard of players, and conditions.

 

Thats 100% correct. I love MLS and I've been going to games since day 1 but the passing really leaves alot to be desired. Too many easy giveaways. However, I think the speed has actually picked up quite a bit since 96. The players are better now than 96 but they still look really inferior to the top European leagues.

 

I think we all agree that MLS has improved its level of play by a lot through the years. Yet, I find myself enjoying MLS matches much more in the early years. Why? I did not have FSW back then! Nowadays, I find most MLS matches to be almost unwatchable (in quality of play, atmosphere, commentary, and look of the field). I still force myself to watch at least some of the matches, partly out of a sense of duty and partly to keep track of our prospects for the nats.

 

The quality of MLS play improved so much just going from week 1 to week 2. Now the strikers just have to get in sync (calling Mr. Wolff).

 

I thought the NY and LA game was just as good as any EPL game except the camera work,which I have saying since day one. This is one of the reasons that MLS game does not look good as EPL game on the Tube.

 

I don't think we can stress enough that the DCU/Chi match was terrible by almost any standard.

Now Columbus' play against NE, thats a totally different story.

 

I have three comments to make:

1) I agree with most of you, money talks and there just isn't any here right now. Not only are we not able to sign quality SIs but a lot of very good Americans play abroad. To hammer my point further think that most teams in La Liga, EPL, Calcio, etc. have teams where 70-80% or more of their players are home grown and they are very good, and in this case I think MLS in on the right track.

When MLS started, apart from the National Team players, most Americans playing in the league really sucked... big time. Hell, Andrew Shue had a spot on the Galaxy! Since then, with P-40 and the SuperDraft many of the top quality national talent hasn't fallen through the cracks, which I'm sure was the case before (i.e. many potentially talented players would chose not to play professional soccer in the A-League etc. because they just didn't see a future in it... now they do with MLS).

What this says to me is that we have to wait until the current youth breaks out, and more comes in. Ricardo Clark and Kyle Martino are good examples. With MLS interested in delveloping home grown talent and with 250+ million Americans this country should get several top quality super stars in the future. That being said an even more solid grass roots movement at the elementary and high school level should be put in place. In Europe kids with potential start playing for top quality league teams as early as 8 or 9 years old. Identifying a Raul or Zidane at that age and molding him is what makes these countries great.

2) Money also plays a very important role when maintaining a team together. If Chicago, DC and SJ had been able to keep their teams intact after winning MLS Cups they would only be better now, after years of playing together. Learning to know your teamates is hard enough.

Furthermore, with the limited budget that the league has to sign players I think that it has been hit and miss so far. For every one or two bad SIs the league has signed and good or very good one was signed too. Average players that did well don't count.

3) Finally, I will say this though, I've been following MLS since it started and I don't think there is anyone out there that wouldn't agree with me in that the level of play in this league has gone up every year. I still remember the innagural season... man that was painful to the eyes. This proves to me that it should consistantly continue to go up over the next few years. With profitability and soccer specific stadiums, I believe that a hard cap will continue but the single entity system will die, and that is when the league will make a huge jump in quality.

 

MLS Play

I hear a lot about how MLS has become so much better over the years.

Maybe.

But Saturday's Chicago - New England match was no fluke. Chicago has no talent in the midfield, and so therefore cannot play anything but ugly soccer. No question, the Fire were better in '98 - '00 than they were today. Not even close, in all truth.

 

That game was a chit sandwich.

 

The reason MLS isn't as exciting as two quality Premiership teams playing is skill.
That said, many of the MLS teams are just as good as Sunderland or West Brom, and that is where the pitch, the atmosphere, and the camera work come into play.
And it will get better in time. The Metros first game they probably didn't string together more than two passes the entire game. Their second game they looked pretty good.