There's a thread at Big Soccer about Landon v Tim Cahill. Am I crazy to think that Landon is better than Cahill and it's not really that hard of a call? Cahill's international score sheet reads like a who's who of stat padders, he's three years older than Landon and really plays his role fantastically for Everton, but if you're talking who is the guy you'd want to start from scratch with, Landon is better. He's faster, better at taking people on, he's the better passer and he tracks back and plays better defense. Whatever combination of luck, confidence and courage Cahill has over than Landon has led to a more accomplished European club career, but Landon has the better international record and can just plain do more on the pitch. I think it's the perfect example of something I've long thought in the various Landon discussions over the years. Landon has both benefited and suffered from being the big fish in the small pond for these many years. He's never been able to find one role, stick to it and master it. He's had to be everything to everybody. Cahill could have been a big fish in a small pond, but when he was coming up, the A league wasn't an option to him like MLS was to Landon, so he got out of the small pond and signed for Millwall. He's been allowed to master a role that he does well. Maybe I just haven't watched enough Cahill and am being a homer. As long as I'm going there, 4 years from now, at age 30, Clint Dempsey will unquestionably be better than Tim Cahill. He is now, for my money. Cahill's got that glorious forehead, but without support players like Landon and Clint, a guy like that wouldn't be rated quite so highly.