I've observed a couple interesting things about the Mexican league. First, I strongly believe that their soccer level is better than ours. However, their National team is not. With that said, I do believe that not all MLS teams could compete with the Mexicans. The following teams however have strong chance surviving and maybe even winning a Mexican league tournement: 1- Los Angeles Galaxy = could beat all Mexican teams in giving day or cup 2- San Jose Earthquake= will do great 3- Colombus Crew= might struggle, but will survive too. 4- New England Revolution= will do great too 5- Chicago Fire= will also do great
Assuming that you drop the salary cap and roster size issues, many MLS teams would compete well. There are A-Leaguers who are able to make more money where they are than with MLS. They jump ship with more money available. With American talent spread on only ten teams and enough money to bring in a talented foreigner or too. That said, you list is fine, but the grind of a Mexican season would stress team depth on LA or any other MLS team. There are MLS bench-players who would be bench-players in the A-League.
Here is my take (although I know nothing about MFL) Chicago- not sure about the Fire of new, but Bradley's Fire could definitely play on the other side of the border Colorado- could fair pretty well when running on all cylinders Columbus- if we could play at our potential consistently, we could very well take the Mexicans DC United- United 2002? No. 2003? I'm still waiting to see what tricks Hudson has up his sleave Dallas Burn- showed flashes of brilliance in MLS this year, they could survive Kansas City- no, no, a thousand times no (PS i am not a KC fan) Los Angeles- could easily do well with the likes of Ruiz (BTW, if you ever get to play against "El Flopador", take him out for me) New England- I personally think they are too defensive, but then again they have Taylor Twellman MetroStars- as long as Mathis scores in each game, the rest is over San Jose- if this were 2001 I would have no question they could be in the upper echelon of MFL, however 2002 leaves me wondering
Your question will be answered next year as the top four MLS and MFL squads, along with the eight best Central American/Caribbean clubs will compete in the FC Champions' Cup. The FCCC will follow a league format, identical to the UEFA Champions League (except one less elimination round due to half the teams). Personally, I am a strong advocate of international play for MLS clubs. I would love to see the Galaxy, Quakes, Colorado, and the Crew work some of their FCCC group play matches into their season ticket packages to gain more exposure, hopefully, getting a US network to cover the tournament.
I could see the fire and galaxy surive in the MFL. I really cant see any of the others do anying in the MFL. I also dont see MLS clubs having too much success playing in Mexico. It is rare when teams like Santos, America, Toluca, Cruz Azul, Pumas lose at home. Toluca is at a higher altitude than Mexico City and the field is also bigger. MLS will have to increase the Salary Cap and expand the rosters
Maybe only the Galaxy and Saint Joe would do good. I could see them as decent mid-table teams. DC U and the Chicago Fire of old would of also put up a good fight. The rest of the MLS teams are too inconsistent. The MetroStars would be the first to get relegated followed by K-City. In the MSL you really cant see how pathetic some teams are as 80% of them make the play offs and there is no Relegation. As harsh as this might sound some of the weakest MFL Clubs have better foreign players than most of the MLS teams. Just look at Puebla which has players like the Costa Rican Jafeth Soto and the Colombian Serna. Atlante with Chilean Internationals Fabian Estay and Sebastian Gonzalez "Chamagoal" who was the leading goal scorer in the Chilean League last season. Even Tecos which resembles MLS teams in attendance figures can boost such quality players as Reinaldo Navia (Chi) Donizetti (Bra) and the Peruvian Roberto Palacios. Yehp i believe the MLS with their parity rules only ends up hurting the league by weaking their stronger teams. If there is no relegation then why punish their best squads by sending their top players to rott in pathetic teams. Best example would be Mathis to Metros. To win the MFL league then Saint Phil would have to combine his six teams into one super team and then buy some reffs before Televisa does it and they are set
Maybe a team like Chicago wouldn't win in Mexico but I would pay to see Mexican teams play at Soldier Field in winter. It would be like the US vs. Mex. qualifier in Columbus. They would have a hard time winning under those conditions.
The MLS roster size issue would be less of an issue in Mexico than some may think. Each tournament consists of only 19 games (plus playoffs) and there’s a substantial break between tournaments. The roster issue wouldn’t have much of an effect in the Apertura. MLS teams would probably start to feel an effect late in the Clausura - but even so, keep in mind that there’s a break in January and that teams that didn’t make the Apertura playoffs have been off since Nov. 24. Another issue that would affect MLS teams involves the differences in officiating between Mexico and MLS. In general, officiating in Mexico is more protective than in MLS. I’m not sure how many of the very physical players in MLS - and there’s a gaggle of them - would adjust to officiating in Mexico. Guys like Franchino, McCarthy, McKeon, etc. would struggle to stay on the field unless they adjust their style of play. I also think that Mexican officials are much less tolerant of obnoxious dissent than MLS officials. So there’d be a lot of adjusting for most MLS players and some teams would adjust more easily than others. On a team-by-team basis, I think that the Galaxy would at least qualify for the liguilla. I doubt they could get past America, Toluca, or Morelia, but may have a close to even shot against Cruz Azul, Pumas, and Santos. I think San Jose would have just slightly worse chances. On their best days, so would Chicago - but it remains to be seen what sort of team Sarachan’s Chicago will be next spring. Otherwise, I doubt there’s anyone in MLS who could be as competitive against the Mexican clubs that I list. But it would also be interesting to see how Columbus and New England would fare. I think their styles of play are so different from anything in Mexico that it’s just too difficult to forecast how they’d do. They also both feature a handful of players who may struggle with the adjustments that I mention above. As far as the Metros, who knows. That team will be very different under Bradley, so I don’t think you could predict how they’d do based on Octavio’s teams. It’s completely true that the best foreign players in Mexico are far better than anyone in MLS, but not every team in Mexico has foreign players who would excel in MLS. For example, you grossly overestimate Fabian Estay - he’s now 34 and hardly what he used to be. Even Aguinaga, formerly a great player at any level, is now also 34, hardly ever fully fit, and well on the decline. And just because some teams have some excellent foreign players doesn’t mean they have any clue how to use them. Pachuca (2 wins, 9 draws, 8 losses, and 21 goals in the Apertura) has Tyson Nunez, but inexplicably likes to keep him on the bench. I also think it’s ridiculous to say that any team in MLS would be any worse than Chiapas, Veracruz, or Queretaro. Those are very bad teams on any day in any league. Any team in MLS would at least have a fighting chance against them. I’d place a decent wager on even the Wizards surviving longer than them.
Throw Celaya (perennial relegation cheaters) and Puebla into the latter group as well. I think even DCU could give those five a run for their money.
Looking solely on talent, I think quite a few teams in MLS could hold their own. But I think Colorado would have a hard time, even at home they would be playing away matches.
The MLS roster size issue would be less of an issue in Mexico than some may think. Each tournament consists of only 19 games (plus playoffs) and there’s a substantial break between tournaments. The roster issue wouldn’t have much of an effect in the Apertura. MLS teams would probably start to feel an effect late in the Clausura - but even so, keep in mind that there’s a break in January and that teams that didn’t make the Apertura playoffs have been off since Nov. 24. There is not a substantial break between tournaments as you may think. The season is not even over and just about ever club is in spring training as we speak. They are already scheduling friendlies and traveling. They will get a couple days off for Christmas and New Years ...and then fly back to a resort to practice. The MFL season is demanding. Having to play the domestic leage, Pre Libertadores, Pre pre Libertadores, Copa Libertadores, Concacaf Cups is demanding. Even if you are not participating in the Libertadores, your games get rescheduled and before you know it you play 2-3 games in less than a week. Last season when America was crowned, they played 5 games in 8 days. THey won 4 and tied once. I dont think MLS clubs have the roster size to do that. (I am not sure if the author of this thread intended this way or not, but the Copa Libertaodres affects every team in way way or the other.) On a team-by-team basis, I think that the Galaxy would at least qualify for the liguilla. I doubt they could get past America, Toluca, or Morelia, but may have a close to even shot against Cruz Azul, Pumas, and Santos. Cruz Azul defends their house better than Morelia. Santos's yard is a tough place to win. I am not saying these teams never lose at home, but it is rare. Just recently, Santos beat America for the first time in the Azteca. It’s completely true that the best foreign players in Mexico are far better than anyone in MLS, but not every team in Mexico has foreign players who would excel in MLS. For example, you grossly overestimate Fabian Estay - he’s now 34 and hardly what he used to be. Even Aguinaga, formerly a great player at any level, is now also 34, hardly ever fully fit, and well on the decline. Forget those 2, we are talking about the young players. As mush as Atlante sucks, they still have some good players. THey just acquired the leading goal scorer of the chilean league last season. It use to be that players would come here after Europe, but that is not the case. In fact, its the other way around. THe leading goal scorer of the Bundis used to play in the MFL. That player in the Serie A that is debating whether to play for the Italians or Argies used to play in Cruz Azul. And just because some teams have some excellent foreign players doesn’t mean they have any clue how to use them. Pachuca (2 wins, 9 draws, 8 losses, and 21 goals in the Apertura) has Tyson Nunez, but inexplicably likes to keep him on the bench. Pachuca is a team that has been dismantled. With players like Brizio (Paraguayan national team), Silvani (who was let go a couple weeks ago) injured and players like Caballero, Vidrio traded... the team suffered. And dont forget that Aguirre also left the team to coach the national team. Last season, Pachuca went from being Winter 2001 CHamps to chumps. On top of 3 key injuries and 4 players on national team duties, it was just a matter of time. Tyson played in 18 games and avergaed 50 minutes per game. But Tyson could not get use to the tempo in the MFL. I know that sounds wierd considering Tyson is super fast, but Pachuca happens to be at a higher altitude than Toluca and Mexico city. What good is he if he cant run??? Tyson was not real effective. I expected more out of him.
Chicago now would get eaten alive, so would NE any time (for christ sakes they weren't that good, they got lucky to be in the Eastern Conferance or they wouldn't even have made the playoffs). Old Chicago would do well. Colorado would fail, so would KC, L.A. & San Jose of 2001 would prosper. Burn of 2002 would do fine. Columbus......not too sure about Columbus. Then again I don't watch too much MFL, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
anderson A most excellent post Anderson. You even got Estay's age right I would only add that with MLS limited roster size and the MFL's unforgiving calender it would be difficult for MLS teams to play in TFC CC and or Copa Libertadores, even Open Cup as most games would cross with League play.
I like your point of view, but Galaxy could go head to head with Toluca, Cruz Azul, Pachuca, America..etc.. in fact the Galaxy and Cruz Azul are very similar in many things. Galaxy won the Concacaf cup for the world cup. They are very successful when playing against Mexican teams. They could go to the Mexican Final as well. Look at the case of Luis Hernandez, he was a mess or almost a failure/regular player in MLS, then went to America Club to be one of the starters. Luis was never a big figure in Los Angeles. Carlos is, but I also agree with ************ about the need for MLS to expand their international rosters and increase the salary.
It's time to debunk this myth about A-leaguers making more money than MLSer. Charleston and Rochester reportedly have the highest payroll in the A-League; their player budget is 500K. MLS is nearly triple that at 1.7M for players. While some younger players like Tennyson and John Barry-Nusum will get contracts from the A-league that is maybe 27K instead of 24K that MLS offers it is few and far between. Also older players, past their prime like Wynalda or Diaz Arce will get contracts that MLS will not offer these aging veterans. MLS is better because of this, not dispite it. Plus A-Leauge teams bring these players in for name recognition more so than an upgrade in talent. Don't get me wrong here, there are some very talented players in the A-league, some even deserve to be in the MLS, but A-Leaguers are not payed well when stacked up next to MLSers. Now that very last sentance is objective and it really can't be argued with; that's how you feel. I think your wrong, but that's my feeling. How many players does the MLS need to play in the MFL They have 22 players on their charts(18SR, 4De). That's two whole squads. You can only sub in 3 in a game and five on your sub card, how many more on the bench do you need? Yes, MLS needs more roster players, but that's in order to give more players a chance in MLS, not because of lack of depth, IMHO. Oh and MLS teams are going to rock the Champions Cup this year [sarcasm]and when they do, it's going to be because the mexican teams didn't care about the tournament.[/sarcasm]. MLS has sent four strong canidates this year, no more past the glory championship teams like in the past, but teams that earned a spot through their play last year.
Yes, you're correct. The Clausura 2003 begins on Jan 11, which is earlier than I was thinking. So it's definitely not quite as long a break as I thought. I also understand that they're not on vacation or laying out on a beach (unless Lothar's back ), but it's still a meaningful break to the extent that it would give teams with limited rosters (like MLS) at least a few weeks to rest up without the pressure of competitive weekly games, nurse injuries, etc. It should also be noted that teams that didn't make the Apertura playoffs have from Nov. 25 till Jan. 11 without league play. And we're assuming that most MLS teams wouldn't make the playoffs, right? Also, the Mexican tourneys feature mostly weekend schedules. There are very few mid-week games. It's not like England or some other places where many teams are on a Wed - Sat - Wed - Sat, etc. schedule. Here's the calendar from the Apertura that shows very few mid-week games: http://www.femexfut.org.mx/primera/apertura2002/calendario.htm Yes, absolutely. If you're playing in multiple tournies simultaneously, it's hellish. But, really, America's situation was highly unusual. Most MLS teams would just be on the mostly weekend league schedule. Only four would have commitments in the Concacaf CC. No Libertadores, Pre-Lib, or Pre-Pre. The big Mexican clubs would actually have more demanding schedules than the MLS clubs. I don't underestimate either team or their home field advantages. All I suggest is that the Galaxy would have a decent chance against either one in a two-leg, home-and-home playoff series. I don't think that's way loco. ... As a side note, I'm not sure we have the whole story on Tyson Nunez. He's strong, fast, and a quality finisher. I deliberately watched as much Pachuca as possible - as painful as that was - to see him play. He often looked very dangerous - sometimes the most dangerous player on Pachuca. it was the rest of that miserable squad that looked like it had no idea what to do with the ball or how to make a decent run - 21 goals in 19 games! I'd love to see Tyson in MLS. I think he'd be incredible next to Pescadito or playing on a team that knows how to cross the ball.
oh yeah...there's that... Gracias. Oh yeah, forgot about the USOC (then again, I think most people do). I suppose MLS teams would have to field equipos emergentes for the road games in Milwaukee and Rochester. But at least league games between MLS and MFL teams that are both in the TFC CC could also double as CC games.
In in tournement involving both MLS and Mexican league teams, both sides will struggle to win away games. I think it will be very hard for a team like Toluca or America to beat LA Galaxy, San Jose and Colorado Rapids at home and even Chicago. I think that we need to add the Colorado Rapids to that least and why not DC United. I think DC is as good as any Mexican league team. They've been struggling in the past seasons, but they could recover soon. They have a great coach now, they will do good too. NOw, in a game between Las Chivas, Cruz Azul, or America in the new LA Galaxy stadium, who will bring the big crowd???????/. Will LA still have the home advantage in Los Angeles???????????.
remember the alamo? the Mexican American War in 1846, the treaty of guadalupe hildalgo. the occupation of mexico city in 1846 - 1847. Turning our backs on Mexico in its war of independence against the Vatican / French in the 1860's. Supporting revolutionaries from 1873 - 1910 with arms and equipment while helping the mexican government to assasinate its leaders, i.e - emilano zapata, pancho villa, Madero. but since that time... Mexico kicked out all oil interests of american companies, U.S. steel, Pacific Railroad... and turned "nacionalista" turning all these imports government owned and doing exclusive business with its patriarch Europe. Mexico since has looked to Europe for its example of government and acceptance of itself, thusly turning their backs on the United States and bottling up a Hatred for The United States of America for 150 years. It shows in its futbol o soccer. Choosing the Soccer field as their stronghold of battle, Now that the tables have turned and they have nothing else left but to recognize and accept our dominace in this sport they hold dear to their hearts. Their arrogance will not let them. Does MFL and Mexican Futbol Federacion want to accept US soccer or MLS in its good ole' soccer boys club with Sud America.... the answer is "No" And ever since 1995 copa america.. south america doesnt want to play with us anymore either. The copa libertadores will never be as big as UEFA cup champions league without the MLS teams involved, it will always look imcomplete and their victories hollow.
Oh really? When has MLS ever tabbed teams who did not earn a spot for the Champions' Cup? I'd like to hear this.
Posting Under the Influence Originally posted by TequilaJoal Does MFL and Mexican Futbol Federacion want to accept US soccer or MLS in its good ole' soccer boys club with Sud America.... the answer is "No" I guess you havent read the Mexican press lately, or are even aware that Mexico gave a vote to Donovan for Fifa player of the year.. And ever since 1995 copa america.. south america doesnt want to play with us anymore either. This just shows how clueless you are as the USSF has continualy turned down invitations.. The copa libertadores will never be as big as UEFA cup champions league without the MLS teams involved, it will always look imcomplete and their victories hollow.