Monday, April 7, 2008

Almost Could've Rankings

1. Kansas City Wizards – Not missing Eddie Johnson, not missing a beat.
2. Chicago Fire – Road game squeaker, home game domination – a recipe for a season of success.
3. Chivas USA – Winning while playing less than best is also a good formula for success.
4. DC United – DC gets its DP (Gallardo) involved – but it’s only Toronto, so keep it in perspective.
5. LA Galaxy – Tales of Beckham’s demise have been exaggerated – and Donovan chips in to deny his old team a resurrection win.
6. New York Red Bull – Who needs the Big Two? New York takes care of business in the Big Apple.
7. New England – Ralston and Twellman MIA, helped NE be DOA.
8. Colorado – Scoring is up exponentially this season for the Rapids.
9. Columbus Crew – Will Hesmer gives team hope – now they need strikers to do the same.
10. FC Dallas – Undefeated! Winless.
11. Houston Dynamo – Of course the Dynamo are better than this, but they haven’t shown it yet.
12. Real Salt Lake – Sparks of fight in RSL still aren’t lighting a fire to warm the hearts of their fans.
13. San Jose Earthquakes – All we are saying, is give us a goal.
14. Toronto FC – Scoring is also up this season for Toronto – wins, though, are not.

20 comments:

just another one of you said...

Chicago is looking great up top. The fact they still have yet to work in Brown and Conde to the back line is a bad sign for the rest of the league. Here's hoping Barret doesn't revert to his old self.

Anonymous said...

I think it's just a little funny that you ask DC to keep it in perspective because they only beat Toronto but we've raised the Galaxy's ranking all the way up to #5 on the strength of beating expansion San Jose at home.

:)

I'm as big a Galaxy fan as anyone, but I think we should all avoid getting carried away.

FC Uptown said...

Gals at #5 and Dynamo at #11? Come on. DCU has several scary good guys - Chicago is Cuantomec and The Blanconairs.

RHdigitalYS said...

Houston is in big trouble with injuries to Onstad and Robinson. Their defense hasn't sparkled with Boswell in the lineup either.

Pablo said...

Wow, I know you are in LA, but the Galaxy up that high! Colorado destroys the Galaxy (oh, yes, it was the altitude) and has a hard-fought, close game with KC but the Galaxy are placed 3 above the Rapids after winning 2-0 against San Jose who were playing their first regular season game together. Galaxy above New York, too!

Perhaps you can continue with this fantasy through Toronto but then here comes Houston (yes, questionable for various reasons). But after Chivas at the end of the month, back to reality for sure.

Anonymous said...

Chivas and Houston are not looking as dangerous as they were last season. Me thinks that a couple of humbling losses would've been just what the doctor ordered, kind of like the one LA got in Colorado. Sure seems to have slapped some sense into Galaxy.

Having edged out wins after dodgy performances may turn out to be more harmful in the long run. It may be, Pablo, that the ones in for a reality check are Houston and Chivas.

Anonymous said...

kansas looked horrible on saturday. they did nothing in the first half and in the second their first two shots on goal went in thanks to some terrible man-marking by colorado.

the whole thing, from the ridiculous field, to the amateur play-by-play guy*, to the abysmal play reminded me of mls circa 1996.

*not awful btw, just clearly not polished

Anonymous said...

Andrea,

Do you really believe the Galaxy is the fifth best team in MLS right now?

And...

How do you drop Colorado behind the said Galaxy (how soon we forget the 4-0 drubbing in week one) after a 3-2 loss in the 87th minute loss to the best team in the league (at least according to you)?

Explain, please.

-- Jaime

A.C. said...

I had the Galaxy near the complete bottom last week and no one accused me of favoritism. As much as I try to get a feel for teams by watching games and highlights on the Internet, it probably does influence me that I saw the Galaxy in person. I think they did well considering Xavier was suspended and Ruiz injured. They could have scored more goals. The altitude in Colorado may have played a factor, but I think the PK played a bigger role, really. Even though they spanked the Galaxy, Colorado didn't impress me that much - their possession that match was negligible, for example. Obviously, they didn't need that to win against the Galaxy, but it matters to me as far as how I judge teams. I dropped NE, for example, not so much because of the painful scoreline versus Chicago, but because of the injuries that I think are catching up to an otherwise still-quality team.

Anonymous said...

Come on, folks. I think these are legitimate rankings. You can't rank based on reputation. Houston has NOT played well at all this year. They've allowed 6 goals. Couldn't win at home. They deserve to be where they are.

Anonymous said...

hah, galaxy. very nice to meet you bias.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

a.c., I know it's a problem to choose power rankings after only two games and I won't accuse you of bias, but there's no way that the Galaxy is the fifth-best team in the league after two meetings.

This is a team that's going to be very streaky. Remember, the vast majority of its starters are young players with little or no professional experience. As Donovan said after the win against San Jose, young players are prone to mistakes. Sure, Franklin looked good in central defense but the Galaxy was facing an expansion team that was playing its first game. Besides, anybody would look good in central defense after Xavier.

This is why power rankings are worthless, regardless of who does them. Too many intangibles and too much of the season remain to make them truly representative.

Man-from-michigan said...

Anonymous #2:

Chivas USA played against RSL without Razov, LAW, and The Emperor. We played a lousy match and came out with the win by 3-1 with 2 goals and 1 assist coming from new acquisitions ... not as dangerous as last season? LOL

Michoacano

A.C. said...

Despite their loss to LA, I still think San Jose is going to be a decent team this year, expansion or not. They had some good results in the preseason (Carolina Cup) and despite his sucky year with the Galaxy, I have a lot of faith in Frank Yallop.
You're right, after two games, it's hard to quantify anything, that's why I'm surprised anyone is complaining. It could be interpretive differences, as well, I've always viewed the PR as more of a pulse and temperature of teams, a who is hot now rating rather than a complete qualitative who is the absolute best. But the assumptions made by so many - and even those I know - surprise me. So I'm not biased when I put the Galaxy further down than any one else ranked them, but I am when I rate them higher? Next week, if I think they play poorly and rate them down again, I'm magically unbiased? Please.
This happens, though. I remember last year Luis infamously ranked Colorado really high one week early on and he got slammed for it. I didn't agree with the ranking, but I didn't think he was biased for it, either. It was his opinion, and people are supposed to have differences there.

Dan Haug said...

I too am a little skeptical od LA t #5. However, I don't think bias in the sense of favoritism. If there is any bias, it is simply due to what AC has been able to see.

RE the LA CO match last week. I think the biggest factor was that LD and Becks had both played tough mathces in Europe on Wed. That, coupled with the altitude and the PK call set up the worst possible circumstances for LA. It also played right into the strengths of the Rapids' style of play (which is hard-charging, high-pressure, and extremely physical).

The Hammer said...

I also think Houston and Chivas are going to hurt from having pulled results from games that should've gone the wrong way for them. Houston should have have 2 losses, and Chivas should have a loss and a draw.

Michoacano, you can argue that you didn't have Suarez, Razov, and Lawson on speculation of what they will bring to the table this season, and I can answer you with equal speculation -- with the start of every season, Suarez and Razov become question marks as to how much they can still contribute, and Lawson could be a one-season wonder.

Can we stick to what we've seen on the pitch so far? If these are power rankings, then as Andrea indicates, they measure a team's curve and not their absolute position.

Anonymous said...

I find it amusing that the 12 years the MLS has been around, no one has ever blamed a loss in Colorado on altitude, but all of a sudden a Galaxy with David Beckham, coached by Ruud Gullit appears and a loss to Colorado in Colorado is blamed on the altitude.

Anonymous said...

@anon - losses in colorado due to altitude are as old as the league. every telecast brings it up, every announcer mentions the "advantage" it creates for the rapids; put simlpy it is far from new.

soyjimador said...

if people are making the counter-claim that its too early to put a number next to teams names, then why even fill out a ranking in the first place?

rankings are assessed on current form, not standings. that being said, id have Dallas a WHOLE LOT higher than the galaxy or most every other team, for that matter.

papa bear said...

I'd put Galaxy at #7 (not saying you are biased, AC. You did have them way low after week 1)
I would also put Chicago #1 over KC by a shade only because KC has only played at home and Chicago has looked good week 1 on the road and was unlucky to draw and looked utterly dominant week 2 missing hald it's defensive backline and exploded offensively.