Weekend Review Show: MLS Talk Podcast


Los Angeles and New York maintained their large leads in the Western and Eastern Conferences with wins over Kansas City and DC United, while Seattle and Columbus played to a draw in the weekend’s marque matchup. On this edition of the Major League Soccer talk podcast, I am joined by Christopher Riordan to talk each of the weekend’s eight matches as well as update you on Division 2, Women’s Professional Soccer, and the U.S. Open Cup.

6 thoughts on “Weekend Review Show: MLS Talk Podcast”

  1. Richard, regarding Toronto FC’s lost to Real Salt Lake. I think Preki didn’t start Dwayne De Rosario, Julián De Guzmán, and O’Brian White was because they played against the (NASL / USSF D-2) Montreal Impact on Wednesday, 28 of April for the Nutrilite Canadian Championship (aka The Voyageurs Cup). They only got two days of rest before facing RSL, but it’s not an excuse.

    (Note: I’m not a Toronto FC fan.)


    1. Thanks, Nelson. It’s good to point that out, and I should have. Like you said, not an excuse, particularly since Preki has hinted at what his priorities will be regarding that competition, but I should have at least mentioned that.

  2. Another fine recap of the weekends action. Interesting argument over 3 points for a win, but I think 3 points is right. You are correct that sometimes you play a fine game and then get tied, yet two points just does not seem enough for a win.

    Good points on the Fire. Pappa seems to be the teams leader. As he goes so goes the team. Nyarko’s play has been at an all-star level all season. The new offense seems to help him greatly. The plan appears not to play McBride a full game but Saturday an injury to Collins John forced him to go 88 minutes. This can’t happen too often (see my match review).

  3. 3 points are absolutely the right amount. It’s about “incentivising” the win. Two teams tied with 15 minutes to go are more likely to settle for a draw and 1 pt if all they gain from pushing on for a winner is 1 more point. An extra 2 pts though could be crucial and make it much more worthwhile for a team to push on and try and win the game.

    There is a problem that 2pts for a win can lead to “draw masters” being overly rewarded. I understand the point made about FC Dallas, but a team who grinds out draws most of the season doesn’t deserve to be rewarded as much an attacking team who loses a few, but crucially wins most. The game would be hideously boring.

    While I get the point that 1pt for a draw can in a certain sense punish decent teams, rewarding winning teams is more important – teams that win are champions.

  4. This podcast completely ignored Chivas USA. Your “analysis” of the Chicago/ChivasUSA was very one-sided. Sorry. I call it as I hear it. You guys mentioned our undefeated start in 2009 twice and our ex-coach Preki. All in all, you offered nothing else in regards to this game and others this season. I’ve been waiting for someone to talk about our squad or coach like you do others. However, your lack of attention leads me to believe that you guys are elitist. Once again, it’s how I see it.

    I think it’s time to delete this podcast from my itunes.
    Good luck, guys.


  5. In the 80s and early 90s, negative, hyperdefensive football was epidemic, most infamously at Italia ’90. The reason the rules were changed to make 3 points for a win was to discourage teams from starting out from the beginning of the match trying to play for a draw. The reason 1 win and 1 loss (3 points) is better than 2 draws (2 points) is because in the former, you actually at some point have to be better than the other team. In the latter, you can get your points without having to score a single goal. In the former, you have to score at least once. 3 points for a win punishes teams that never try to be anything other than mediocre.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *