By J Hutcherson - WASHINGTON, DC (Sep 21, 2011) US Soccer Players -- Maybe it's no longer worth feigning surprise when the Seattle Sounders opt for a new look lineup in CONCACAF Champions League play. Seattle coach Sigi Schmid has made it clear that stacking his club's schedule with multiple midweek games means his first-choice eleven won't always be available. Fair enough in big picture terms. After all, Major League Soccer clubs have limited rosters. Yet there's the feeling that Seattle is taking this to its obvious limit.
Putting out what nobody would argue is a lineup worthy of a Major League Soccer game, Seattle lost at home in the CONCACAF Champions League to a team that prior to Tuesday night at CenturyLink Field had been the laughing stock of Group D. In his post-game comments, Schmid admitted that even with the demands of the schedule his lineup wasn't good enough to expect to win.
In other words, this isn't exactly new from this team this season, or MLS in prior seasons. Again, maybe it's just me but isn't there at least the feeling that the 2011 version of the Sounders is trying to stretch the limits of a representative eleven in a way that doesn't seem necessary?
The last time we talked about Seattle and prioritizing competitions, one of the comments provided a solid rebuttal. It's the fans doing the prioritizing as much as it is the Sounders. A case in point, last night in CONCACAF Champions League play.
Fortunately for Seattle, they got some help in the other Group D game. The Sounders are still top of the group, with a manageable path to the next round. Schmid's risk wasn't rewarded, but it also wasn't unduly punished. All in all, it worked out for Seattle. Well, at least on the field and in the Group D table. In the stands? Not so much.
You know, even though it's twice what their secondary home venue holds, 10,017 at an NFL stadium still looks ridiculous. That's what happens when Seattle's fans determine the importance of the secondary competitions. Apparently, a midweek CONCACAF Champions League game simply isn't much of a draw. Seattle's support is hardly the first to come to that conclusion, but it's in a metropolitan area that doesn't dip under 30,000 for regular season MLS games.
We could argue that part of this stems directly from the club. Seattle has made no secret that they're putting the League first. Currently 2nd in the Western Conference and with a better record than any team in the East, that's working for them. At the same time, they remain a US Open Cup team willing to spend to insure home field advantage. They deserve ample credit for valuing the Cup more than other MLS clubs. Yet at the same time, they can be accused of playing down in the CONCACAF Champions League.
I've already made it clear that I don't fully buy into the limits of MLS squads in the face of strenuous schedules. The Sounders themselves like to think they've had it worse than other clubs. In that version, they have no choice but to put the games that draw first, a competition they've historically valued second, and one they think they can maneuver through third.
Historically, MLS teams simply haven't done subtlety well. And it's subtlety we're describing when trying to tinker with an MLS roster to get results in League, Cup, and Champions League play.
What's also at work is the Seattle example. We already know that any model that shows success in MLS will be copied by other clubs, no matter how specific to a single squad in a single year. For some MLS clubs, it's not that Real Salt Lake and the Rapids won MLS Cups with a distinct mixture of players and tactics that made them competitive against stronger clubs. It's that both of those teams had success without spending like LA or New York.
Seattle is currently showing that it's possible to stay competitive in every available competition through radically altering the lineups game by game. That can be dismissed as nothing new for MLS, but it supports a read on this League that prioritizes regular season games.
Maybe that's fine, but very few teams are playing those regular season games at or near capacity. A few more MLS clubs might deign to treat the Open Cup with a modicum of respect, but that's still a subset of the League's teams that participate in the tournament. And last - and certainly in the minds of some, least - there's the Champions League.
Perhaps that won't change until an MLS team actually wins the Champions League. Until then, we're still having to stress the upside of a tournament that's the only way to gain entry to the Club World Cup. That's another milestone for this League. It's one that's far more important than treating every MLS regular season game as crucial - even when you're the MLS attendance leader.
Comments, questions, solutions to problems that have yet to present themselves. Please, tell me all about it.
