Some quick observations on MLS

[IthacaMatt]

I've been watching the World Cup since the great Dutch and German sides of the mid-1970s. I was a big fan of the New York Cosmos, the first time around for pro soccer in the US. I only started watching the Premier League in the 2009-2010 season in the run up to World Cup South Africa.

Back then, only 5 years ago, soccer on TV in the US was not as popular or ever-present as it is today. We had Fox Soccer channel, and Chelsea were on their way to a championship, so they were in the featured game most weeks, and that's when I became a fan.

Trying to watch MLS back then, well, it was painful. US players were dreadful in their close control of the ball and usually a pass that a Premier League player would gracefully bring under control would often bounce 5 yards away from his US counterpart in MLS. Games were very dull to watch.

Thankfully, MLS has improved their product tremendously since then. I don't watch a lot of MLS still, but as we begin the summer withdrawal from European football, I am more drawn to it than I have been before. And I'm finding MLS a lot more fun to watch than it used to be.

You look at the New York Red Bulls, who lost Thierry Henry, and yet they have a very solid midfield and a handful of recognizable names in the roster. Of course the LA Galaxy has been the league's glamour team since the beginning, but the Portland / Seattle rivalry is pretty entertaining, and both cities have great crowds for the games, great atmosphere. Seattle has some excellent attacking players apart from Deuce.

Then you have pretty watchable teams in Real Salt Lake, Sporting Kansas City, and the New England Revolution. Watching the Galaxy v. New England the other day, you had a 4 goal back-and-forth first half, in a thrilling game. I watch today's MLS and I see big, big improvements in the product. It helps a lot, I think, that so many US internationals who were on the bench overseas are getting playing time here at home. Sure, you could say that indicates the lesser quality of the league compared to the Big Five leagues overseas, but I think you can put it down to some differences in how the US players approach soccer compared to the rest of the world.

I do think we play the game a bit differently here. My explanation - US players grow up playing soccer on American football fields, which on average are 25 yards more narrow than pitches in England or throughout Europe. I think the lack of width forces US teams to play more direct. Part of the reason we are not "as good" at possession football is that our fields being so much smaller makes for less running by the defense, and more congestion around the ball. Also, it's just the US character to be more direct in sports - "take it to the other team" is ingrained in American athletes in every sport. (That's one of the reasons people used to be so critical of Boeheim's zone in the past - they failed to see how the zone actually dictated how the opponent attacked; they always used to say you had to "man up" and cover somebody - you see, dictating play?)

Anyway, another difference I see also relates to the playing surface. In American, the prevalence of these artificial surfaces change the way Americans play the game. We simply do not slide into tackles nearly as much as other players around the world, because of the rug burns people get from playing on artificial surfaces. Stand-up defending is a good way to avoid fouling, but it leads to more porous defense compared to what we see in Europe. US players are fundamentally sound and don't make as many dangerous challenges as European players do, and they don't get so many yellow cards, in my opinion.

Yet another difference in defending - MLS players and US officials do not permit nearly so much grabbing and holding in the penalty area on set pieces. Of course, this leads to more chances and makes the defending look a little more slack, but that's what football is meant to look like, not everyone grappling like it's pro wrestling on a set piece, with half of the players going to ground.

The surface is also frequently more bouncy than natural grass. This leads to more skipping passes, and perhaps plays a part in MLS players' less efficient control.

One of the big improvements in MLS in the last 5 years is the influx of players from other CONCACAF nations and even players from South America and Europe. Sure, they might be from "League 2" of one of the Big 5 countries, but they still raise the quality of competition and have taught Americans more about tactics and different ways of playing the game. There is far more attacking quality than there used to be. I would dare say that MLS has better attacking football among its top teams than you see in the very bottom Premier League teams, or Championship teams in Cup play.

MLS teams can score, even if a lot of it is "smash and grab" style of barging the ball up the field and running over competitors sometimes, but that makes sense when the ball doesn't roll across the field like the ball on a billiards table. I'm starting to come around to MLS. It is an improving product that is probably still more entertaining than a game between two major league baseball teams that you don't have a rooting interest in.

 

[Orangezoo]

I've been watching the World Cup since the great Dutch and German sides of the mid-1970s. I was a big fan of the New York Cosmos, the first time around for pro soccer in the US. I only started watching the Premier League in the 2009-2010 season in the run up to World Cup South Africa.

Back then, only 5 years ago, soccer on TV in the US was not as popular or ever-present as it is today. We had Fox Soccer channel, and Chelsea were on their way to a championship, so they were in the featured game most weeks, and that's when I became a fan.

Trying to watch MLS back then, well, it was painful. US players were dreadful in their close control of the ball and usually a pass that a Premier League player would gracefully bring under control would often bounce 5 yards away from his US counterpart in MLS. Games were very dull to watch.

Thankfully, MLS has improved their product tremendously since then. I don't watch a lot of MLS still, but as we begin the summer withdrawal from European football, I am more drawn to it than I have been before. And I'm finding MLS a lot more fun to watch than it used to be.

You look at the New York Red Bulls, who lost Thierry Henry, and yet they have a very solid midfield and a handful of recognizable names in the roster. Of course the LA Galaxy has been the league's glamour team since the beginning, but the Portland / Seattle rivalry is pretty entertaining, and both cities have great crowds for the games, great atmosphere. Seattle has some excellent attacking players apart from Deuce.

Then you have pretty watchable teams in Real Salt Lake, Sporting Kansas City, and the New England Revolution. Watching the Galaxy v. New England the other day, you had a 4 goal back-and-forth first half, in a thrilling game. I watch today's MLS and I see big, big improvements in the product. It helps a lot, I think, that so many US internationals who were on the bench overseas are getting playing time here at home. Sure, you could say that indicates the lesser quality of the league compared to the Big Five leagues overseas, but I think you can put it down to some differences in how the US players approach soccer compared to the rest of the world.

I do think we play the game a bit differently here. My explanation - US players grow up playing soccer on American football fields, which on average are 25 yards more narrow than pitches in England or throughout Europe. I think the lack of width forces US teams to play more direct. Part of the reason we are not "as good" at possession football is that our fields being so much smaller makes for less running by the defense, and more congestion around the ball. Also, it's just the US character to be more direct in sports - "take it to the other team" is ingrained in American athletes in every sport. (That's one of the reasons people used to be so critical of Boeheim's zone in the past - they failed to see how the zone actually dictated how the opponent attacked; they always used to say you had to "man up" and cover somebody - you see, dictating play?)

Anyway, another difference I see also relates to the playing surface. In American, the prevalence of these artificial surfaces change the way Americans play the game. We simply do not slide into tackles nearly as much as other players around the world, because of the rug burns people get from playing on artificial surfaces. Stand-up defending is a good way to avoid fouling, but it leads to more porous defense compared to what we see in Europe. US players are fundamentally sound and don't make as many dangerous challenges as European players do, and they don't get so many yellow cards, in my opinion.

Yet another difference in defending - MLS players and US officials do not permit nearly so much grabbing and holding in the penalty area on set pieces. Of course, this leads to more chances and makes the defending look a little more slack, but that's what football is meant to look like, not everyone grappling like it's pro wrestling on a set piece, with half of the players going to ground.

The surface is also frequently more bouncy than natural grass. This leads to more skipping passes, and perhaps plays a part in MLS players' less efficient control.

One of the big improvements in MLS in the last 5 years is the influx of players from other CONCACAF nations and even players from South America and Europe. Sure, they might be from "League 2" of one of the Big 5 countries, but they still raise the quality of competition and have taught Americans more about tactics and different ways of playing the game. There is far more attacking quality than there used to be. I would dare say that MLS has better attacking football among its top teams than you see in the very bottom Premier League teams, or Championship teams in Cup play.

MLS teams can score, even if a lot of it is "smash and grab" style of barging the ball up the field and running over competitors sometimes, but that makes sense when the ball doesn't roll across the field like the ball on a billiards table. I'm starting to come around to MLS. It is an improving product that is probably still more entertaining than a game between two major league baseball teams that you don't have a rooting interest in.

Good post. I have been following much more closely starting just last year. There are some very entertaining squads to watch as well as some interesting tactical play from teams that don't have a lot of creativity. I love watching the Sounders on the attack as Dempsey, Martins and Pappa are electric. The Galaxy are fun to watch as well as they have cemented a style of play and of course are well coached. Zardes is a great example of the improved quality helping to develop a player domestically.

I have enjoyed the dynamic of Kaka in Orlando and Villa in NYC as well given the difference in outcomes. Villa surely put up great numbers but benefitted from the talent around him greatly which has been more than evident watching NYCFC play this year. Will be interesting to see Lampard and Pirlo added to the mix as well. Just like MCFC I presume they will find their way to success given enough talent.

I definitely think the top clubs could compete at the bottom of the EPL and in the Championship. A good example of that is how well Defoe transitioned back to the EPL and had immediate success after doing well in MLS. So other than piling on, I would just add it is really nice to have a quality football product stateside to fill in the Euro gaps for sure.