PDA

View Full Version : MLS Cup 2003 Final this Sunday. Who do you have winning?


Celticrugby
Nov 21 2003, 01:46 PM
The matchup takes place in California and is between the Chicago Fire and San Jose Earthquakes. Who do you have winning the match?

I'll say the Fire 2-1.

Here is some more info for those of you who aren't that familiar with the MLS:

Why the Quakes Could Win: Should San Jose reverse its recent form and grab an early lead, it could be lights out for the Fire. The Quakes are undefeated in 48 consecutive regular- and postseason matches in which they led at halftime, by far the longest in MLS history. San Jose has posted a 44–0–4 record since April 3, 1999 when leading at the half, including 3–0 in the playoffs. (Note: Chicago has outscored San Jose 9–1 in the first half-hour of their 17 regular-season matches, with a 7–0 margin over the past five seasons.)

Why the Quakes Could Win, Part 2: Frank Yallop’s career average of 2.2 subs used per regular-season game is the lowest in MLS history (minimum: 50 games). But during the playoffs, Yallop’s substitutions have been frequent and effective. Yallop has used 31 subs in 11 postseason games—only two fewer than the maximum—and they have scored a total of five goals. Bob Bradley is the only other coach whose subs have scored five postseason goals, but he’s coached many more playoff games than Yallop (26).

Why the Fire Should Win: Two words: Chris Armas. Can a defensive mid raise the level of an average-to-good team to championship caliber? Armas apparently does. The Fire has an all-time record of 68–36–15 with Armas in the lineup—a winning percentage of .634. That’s higher than the composite record of the first seven MLS Cup champions (.626). Without Armas, the Fire’s record is just four games above level (29–25–8, .532). In the postseason, with a smaller sample the story is the same: 16–9–2 with Armas (.630), 2–3 without him. Playing brilliantly now, Armas would have been Man of the Match in the Eastern Conference Final even if he hadn’t scored the golden goal.

Why the Fire Should Win, Part 2: The Fire have held the Quakes to one goal or none in each of their last nine meetings, two short of the longest head-to-head streak in MLS history. On the other hand, the Quakes have conceded at least two goals in each of their last five playoff games, dating back to the 2002 postseason. To use an out-of-date cliché that happens to fit here, do the math.

Celticrugby
Nov 23 2003, 09:58 PM
4-2 is the final score to San Jose, who wins their second MLS Cup.

TedNolan
Nov 24 2003, 03:01 AM
don't they have peschisolido??

Fins Prompte
Nov 24 2003, 03:02 AM
MLS is as important as having root canal done to me.

Celticrugby
Nov 24 2003, 03:18 AM
Its really not that bad. C'mon, you live here, you should try and support the sport here so it grows!

Celticrugby
Nov 24 2003, 03:18 AM
don't they have peschisolido??
Derosario?

Fins Prompte
Nov 24 2003, 09:37 AM
They took our teams in Florida right before the season started. The Mutiny were a good team and yet decided to cut us off and now I hear Cleveland is a possibility for expansion? Guess the latinos in FL are not enough to promote and just read that 21,000 showed up for the final. low? I won't follow it until they return a team back to Tampa. Not our fault that our teams sucked in the playoffs when half the team was away for WC qualifiers.

Big Pete
Nov 24 2003, 10:07 AM
Much travelled Dane, Ronnie Ekelund, scored the first goal which made him the second Dane to score in a MLS Cup Final the other being Miklos Molnar. This means that all Danes that have played in the MLS have scored in the MLS Cup Final seeing that the two are the only ones having played in the MLS. I know how much Americans love statistics, so maybe a team will look to sign me since I'm Danish :woot

TedNolan
Nov 24 2003, 02:35 PM
Derosario?

ahahahaha yes sorry.

Excelsior
Nov 25 2003, 09:23 AM
I think the way the MLS is set up is pretty stupid. They play a whole league of 36 (is this right?) games to knock out just 2 teams!!! Simply because 8 out of 10 teams can play playoffs. Why not 4 teams in the playoffs? Or no playoffs?

riverplate
Nov 28 2003, 08:02 PM
I think the way the MLS is set up is pretty stupid. They play a whole league of 36 (is this right?) games to knock out just 2 teams!!! Simply because 8 out of 10 teams can play playoffs. Why not 4 teams in the playoffs? Or no playoffs?

They played 30 matches this year, up from 28 during the 2002 season. But your point is certainly correct. Fortunately this year, the clubs with the two best records met in the MLS Cup final.

You would be surprised how many MLS fans believe this is a legitimate way, even a necessary way, to maintain interest with the clubs. Many seem to feel nobody would bother paying attention to the league if their clubs were eliminated somewhat early in the season. They believe interest is heightened if everybody still has a shot at the playoffs going into the last weekend of play.

No playoffs would be fine with me, but they would have to adopt a single table instead of the East-West breakdown they currently have. There would be great resistance to such a move.

Fins Prompte
Dec 6 2003, 02:30 AM
sorry, but if there are no playoffs, then it does lose interest. Why watch the NBA if the Lakers have best record and then hand them award. You have to earn it in playoffs when you play against the good teams and not crappy teams. Imagine how many titles the yankees would have won by now if there were no playoffs.

Cait
Dec 6 2003, 12:47 PM
Maybe they're looking at it like it was american football. Nearly every football fan (and a LOT of non-football fans) watch the Superbowl and look forward to it. They might think if we have to wait too long for the final, we won't care anymore. In football, if the game is up 20 or 30 points, we don't care anymore, we know who wins. If we don't know who's going to win the whole way through the soccer season, we do care. At least maybe that's what they think.

Some teams do better in the playoffs than the season, from what I've seen. Play like there's no tomorrow, because there might just not be.

riverplate
Dec 6 2003, 02:18 PM
sorry, but if there are no playoffs, then it does lose interest. Why watch the NBA if the Lakers have best record and then hand them award. You have to earn it in playoffs when you play against the good teams and not crappy teams. Imagine how many titles the yankees would have won by now if there were no playoffs.

Look at it this way, why should Chicago or San Jose this year in MLS have had to play a .500 or sub-.500 club in a playoff and risk being beaten in a brief series when over the long haul of the "regular season" they have proven to be far superior to a club they meet in the first-round of the playoffs.

I'm not against playoffs, but just a few clubs deserve the honor of being there. If MLS wants four clubs out of ten to be in the playoffs, I'd live with that. That way you would have deserving clubs in the playoff while maintaining interest in the regular season because most clubs would still be within striking distance of a playoff berth going into the last month.

Celticrugby
Dec 6 2003, 04:57 PM
Or they could just have whoever tops the table wins the League, just like real soccer. Have the playoffs be the MLS Cup matches as a separate competition.

Fins Prompte
Dec 7 2003, 03:45 AM
Look at what happened in Mexican championships. Everyone said Pumas and Tiges would be the champs, and now look where they are. If you are a fan of a sub 500 team, where is the hope if you keep knowing that you will be 500 and not win anything. This gives you hope.

Fins Prompte
Dec 7 2003, 03:47 AM
Let's say the champ is up by 14 points, MANU in 1999, WHY watch it when the champ is already decided with no playoffs, it would suffer. Its like hockey getting rid of lord stanley and just going with the president's trophy.