World Football Thread XVII : Champions League Final and beyond..

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Maquiladora]Even though they played terrible in all their gold cup games, which were all played in the US. Away from home and on some awful pitches for passing football.[/q]

Err... you did notice the composition for the crowd in the finale, I hope? While on US soil, the Mexican fans were about 90% of the stadium. I assure you that when Mexico plays in the US, more times than not, it's a home game for them. Only rarely do they have less fans (some US cities when playing the US).

I doubt it hardly has the same effect on the US players mentality when they play in Chicago rather than the Azteca either

The main difference in Azteca is the elevation. When your stadium is that high up, it's a Hell of a home field advantage. When Mexico plays the US in Los Angeles, Chicago, Texas, etc, they are easily the more supported team. Los Angeles for all intents and purposes can basically be Mexico for soccer purposes.

If the US is the best team in the CONCACAF region then that's bad news for that region, as Mexico were clearly the better team the other night.

How does that even make sense? The best team in CONCACAF looked worse on one night than the second best team in CONCACAF? And?

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Maquiladora]Even though they played terrible in all their gold cup games, which were all played in the US. Away from home and on some awful pitches for passing football.[/q]

Err... you did notice the composition for the crowd in the finale, I hope? While on US soil, the Mexican fans were about 90% of the stadium. I assure you that when Mexico plays in the US, more times than not, it's a home game for them. Only rarely do they have less fans (some US cities when playing the US).

How does that address the terrible passing pitches? I already mentioned the crowds included plenty of Mexican (living in the US) fans "despite having plenty of fans", but like I also said, playing at Chicago and playing in the Azteca there is a big big difference in player mentality and confidence due to other factors. And like you also said, the elevation at the Azteca, and pitches in Mexico are different.

Also the fans at the Azteca (from surrounding suburbs) are a completely different (insane) type of fan to your average Mexican residing in the US. Creates a totally different atmosphere.

Basically fans (certainly Mexicans living in the US) alone do not make a home venue.

If the US is the best team in the CONCACAF region then that's bad news for that region, as Mexico were clearly the better team the other night.

How does that even make sense? The best team in CONCACAF looked worse on one night than the second best team in CONCACAF? And?

I meant losing heavily to Argentina rather.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
How does that address the terrible passing pitches? I already mentioned the crowds included plenty of Mexican (living in the US) fans "despite having plenty of fans", but like I also said, playing at Chicago and playing in the Azteca there is a big big difference in player mentality and confidence due to other factors. And like you also said, the elevation at the Azteca, and pitches in Mexico are different.

Also the fans at the Azteca (from surrounding suburbs) are a completely different (insane) type of fan to your average Mexican residing in the US. Creates a totally different atmosphere.

Basically fans (certainly Mexicans living in the US) alone do not make a home venue.

Well, I'm sure a lot of the fields were being used for MLS games during the week, so not a lot of time to get them ready for Gold Cup matches.

Yeah, there is a different attitude playing at Azteca and ANYWHERE else. Whether it'd be Chicago or Guadalajara or where ever. Azteca's elevation makes it ultimate home field advantage. I believe in non-friendlies only Brazil has beaten Mexico at Azteca and only once.

The US has actually offered the Mexican Association a game against the US at Los Angeles (don't kid yourself, that IS a Mexican home venue, and they are just as nuts as those fans living across the border) during WC qualifying if they play anywhere other than Azteca. The elevation is really the problem in Mexico City... for everyone that plays Mexico there.

In addition on neutral soil, the US has the upper hand on Mexico (South Korea '02).

And as Carlos Bocanegra says "It's nice (for Mexico) to have two home countries to play in."

I meant losing heavily to Argentina rather.

Our B team (if that) lost to one of the Top 5 teams in the world big time... it was kind of expected.

[Maquiladora]

The US has actually offered the Mexican Association a game against the US at Los Angeles (don't kid yourself, that IS a Mexican home venue, and they are just as nuts as those fans living across the border) during WC qualifying if they play anywhere other than Azteca. The elevation is really the problem in Mexico City... for everyone that plays Mexico there.

It's nowhere near the same as the Azteca though and they know it. And I'm not talking only the elevation, the stadium is an imposing place, filled with very loud fans, it's just not a place you want to play away at regardless of elevation.

Besides this elevation issue is only being mentioned now because FIFA made a big deal of it because the big teams (Brazil and Argentina) complained about it, except FIFA were roundly criticised to pandering to them for it.

Like most US pitches LA will not be ideal for Mexico either, with either its abnormally long grass or incredibly bumpy and hard mud. There are many factors that aren't the same in LA, it's just not a home venue for Mexico no matter how many times it's said.

In addition on neutral soil, the US has the upper hand on Mexico (South Korea '02).

Ghana are also better than the US on neutral soil. Mexico went further in the 2006 WC too.

Our B team (if that) lost to one of the Top 5 teams in the world big time... it was kind of expected.

It was also expected Mexico's B team would lose against Brazil, but they won.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't let Maquiladora troll you, Imran. America is 9-2-1 against Mexico since 2000. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue that Mexico is the better team.

Then again, Maquiladora is English. Maybe he is serious...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
It's nowhere near the same as the Azteca though and they know it. And I'm not talking only the elevation, the stadium is an imposing place, filled with very loud fans, it's just not a place you want to play away at regardless of elevation.

Besides this elevation issue is only being mentioned now because FIFA made a big deal of it because the big teams (Brazil and Argentina) complained about it, except FIFA were roundly criticised to pandering to them for it.

The elevation 'issue' has been mentioned for years. Just because you don't follow CONCACAF doesn't mean that others haven't. Mexico City has ALWAYS been a tough place to play because of the toll the elevation takes on teams which are used to more sea level climes.

Loud fans are one thing, and if you've never seen the Rose Bowl (in LA) filled with 80,000+ Mexican fans with their drums and horns, then you really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the US stadiums not having "very loud fans" and not being an "imposing place" for US teams to have to play. There is a reason that the US Soccer Federation NEVER schedules US-Mexico matches in LA, even though they'd probably get the most money there.

Like most US pitches LA will not be ideal for Mexico either, with either its abnormally long grass or incredibly bumpy and hard mud. There are many factors that aren't the same in LA, it's just not a home venue for Mexico no matter how many times it's said.

You are nuts. LA is basically a province of Mexico when the US plays Mexico there. It's a de facto home venue for Mexico, end of story. It's why the US never plays Mexico there anymore.

Ghana are also better than the US on neutral soil. Mexico went further in the 2006 WC too.

Mexico had an easier opening round. Would have nice to play Portugal, Angola, and Iran rather than Czech Republic, Italy, and Ghana. I'd take the former 10 times out of 10.

It was also expected Mexico's B team would lose against Brazil, but they won.

They were kind of playing Brazil's B team. Unless you magically noticed Ronaldinho, Kaka, etc. on the Brazil side?

Mexico has more depth than the US (which is not a secret). But their starting team is not as good as the US starting team. Mainly because the US has more players who play abroad, especially in Europe.

Besides, Mexico brought players who were far more experienced than the US:

Total caps among Mexico's Copa America squad: 654
Total caps among US's Cope America squad: 263

Yes, that's right... the US team has 391 less caps than the Mexican one. And Mexico has not played in that many more games than the US over the past decade or so. Actually, IIRC, the US has the least caps among any squad in Copa America.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I noticed you didn't address the pitches in the US (including LA) in any of that. They simply do not suit a low passing brand of football.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the influence of other factors (besides elevation) between LA and the Azteca.

Ghana are also better than the US on neutral soil. Mexico went further in the 2006 WC too.

Mexico had an easier opening round. Would have nice to play Portugal, Angola, and Iran rather than Czech Republic, Italy, and Ghana. I'd take the former 10 times out of 10.

You lost to the mighty Ghana though, yet drew with Italy. You only have yourselves to blame, not the grouping.

They were kind of playing Brazil's B team. Unless you magically noticed Ronaldinho, Kaka, etc. on the Brazil side?

Ronaldinho and Kaka do not Brazil make. Make no mistake Mexico's B team were still expected to lose to Brazil without those two.

Mexico has more depth than the US (which is not a secret). But their starting team is not as good as the US starting team. Mainly because the US has more players who play abroad, especially in Europe.

Besides, Mexico brought players who were far more experienced than the US:

Total caps among Mexico's Copa America squad: 654
Total caps among US's Cope America squad: 263

Yes, that's right... the US team has 391 less caps than the Mexican one. And Mexico has not played in that many more games than the US over the past decade or so. Actually, IIRC, the US has the least caps among any squad in Copa America.

If you're assuming Fulham, Watford and Sheff. Wed good examples of US 1st team players being better because they play abroad then you're on the wrong track.

And # of caps is a very dodgy way to judge the strength of a team in this situation, where ALL squads/1st teams are under strength due to injuries, tired players, resting players. Also players with many caps are in some cases deadweight. Blanco for example has 92 caps but doesn't start for Mexico anymore as he can't run for more than 15mins (yet somehow managed a transfer to Chicago Fire). Sanchez (81 caps) didn't play against Brazil either. Other experienced players are merely subs (Phil Neville has 56 caps you know!), and many teams operate differently. Not to mention Mexico's far and away best player right now has 4 caps.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I noticed you didn't address the pitches in the US (including LA) in any of that.

I think I did mention in passing that MLS games were also being played in those stadium at around the same times, so I speculated that many too many games, not giving it a chance to recover. I don't recall many complaints about pitch quality back in WC '94 (where Soldier Field was a venue as well).

You lost to the mighty Ghana though

You say this like Ghana is akin to Angola or Iran. You haven't forgotten that Ghana has Michael Essien, Stephen Appiah, and Sammy Kuffour, have you? Or that Ghana beat the Czech Republic 2-0. Or that Group E was referred to as a second Group of Death prior to the tourney, right?

Ronaldinho and Kaka do not Brazil make. Make no mistake Mexico's B team were still expected to lose to Brazil without those two.

Now I know you are being a troll. Yeah, Brazil were probably expected to win, but it was Brazil's B squad against Mexico's B squad. How can it be otherwise when the most experienced players on Brazil's side are Juan, Gilberto Silva, and Robinho and there is no Ronaldinho, no Kaka, no Adriano, no Edmilson, no Lucio, etc.

If you're assuming Fulham, Watford and Sheff. Wed good examples of US 1st team players being better because they play abroad then you're on the wrong track.

So you are claiming that playing against some of the best competition in the world does nothing to improve a player's play? So Bocanegra, Beasley, DeMerit, etc, would be just as good if they spent all this time playing in the MLS instead?

Seriously?

And # of caps is a very dodgy way to judge the strength of a team in this situation, where ALL squads/1st teams are under strength due to injuries, tired players, resting players. Also players with many caps are in some cases deadweight. Blanco for example has 92 caps but doesn't start for Mexico anymore as he can't run for more than 15mins (yet somehow managed a transfer to Chicago Fire). Sanchez (81 caps) didn't play against Brazil either. Other experienced players are merely subs (Phil Neville has 56 caps you know!), and many teams operate differently. Not to mention Mexico's far and away best player right now has 4 caps.

The number of caps show how much experience your team has. So a team with a little over 250 caps is one that hasn't exactly played in international tournaments... ie, the B team or a glorified U23 squad. While Blanco can't really 'run', he is undoubtably the heart of the Mexican squad. And while it is nice that you think Mexico's best player is the 4 capped Castillo, the fact remains that he is in a lineup surrounded by experienced players, who have been there before. As opposed to a bunch of players who are really just trying this out without much international experience at all.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You say this like Ghana is akin to Angola or Iran. You haven't forgotten that Ghana has Michael Essien, Stephen Appiah, and Sammy Kuffour, have you? Or that Ghana beat the Czech Republic 2-0. Or that Group E was referred to as a second Group of Death prior to the tourney, right?

You were still expected to beat them. You were mauled by the Czech Rep, who lost to Ghana aswell. Again, don't make excuses, you just weren't good enough.

Now I know you are being a troll. Yeah, Brazil were probably expected to win, but it was Brazil's B squad against Mexico's B squad.

Except that Brazil's B team all play at European clubs, and Mexico's B team (excepting Marquez) all play in Mexico, and still won.

If you're assuming Fulham, Watford and Sheff. Wed good examples of US 1st team players being better because they play abroad then you're on the wrong track.

So you are claiming that playing against some of the best competition in the world does nothing to improve a player's play? So Bocanegra, Beasley, DeMerit, etc, would be just as good if they spent all this time playing in the MLS instead?

Imran, DeMerit is at Watford and Bocanegra at Fulham for a reason, not Chelsea or Man Utd. The same reason Marquez plays at Barcelona and not Levante.

They may get better, but where are they starting from?

The number of caps show how much experience your team has. So a team with a little over 250 caps is one that hasn't exactly played in international tournaments...

As I said, those 250 caps can be distributed amongst the players in many different ways, it's proof of nothing on the pitch by itself.

While Blanco can't really 'run', he is undoubtably the heart of the Mexican squad.

In the final stages of the Gold Cup he played 12mins against the US, 4mins against Guadeloupe, and unused against Costa Rica.

In the Copa America he was unused against Brazil.

And while it is nice that you think Mexico's best player is the 4 capped Castillo, the fact remains that he is in a lineup surrounded by experienced players, who have been there before. As opposed to a bunch of players who are really just trying this out without much international experience at all.

Mexico last starting lineup included 3 uncapped players, GK 6 caps, a DF with unknown caps (I think 0 as he's new), a DF with 10 caps, and Castillo with 4 caps. That's 7 starting players against Brazil with hardly any caps between them. So he was not "surrounded" by experience.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You were still expected to beat them. You were mauled by the Czech Rep, who lost to Ghana aswell. Again, don't make excuses, you just weren't good enough.

Maybe Ghana were better than people thought? Yeah, the US wasn't good enough and was in a Group of Death. Why this is mutually exclusive to you is fascinating.

Except that Brazil's B team all play at European clubs, and Mexico's B team (excepting Marquez) all play in Mexico, and still won.

And? Are you attempting to assert that Brazil's B team is better than Argentina's A team?

I doubt Mexico's Copa team beats Brazil's A team. Mexico has great depth. I'm not denying that.

Imran, DeMerit is at Watford and Bocanegra at Fulham for a reason, not Chelsea or Man Utd. The same reason Marquez plays at Barcelona and not Levante.

Are DeMerit and Bocanegra PLAYING against Chelsea and Man Utd on a regular basis? That makes my point. Greater competition they face daily than those playing in the MSL.

And I don't think I indicated that Marquez is worse than any American player, did I? Marquez is an absolute great player. To compare, Jared Borgetti, perhaps Mexico's greatest striker played one season at Bolton, which is also not Chelsea or Man Utd.

As I said, those 250 caps can be distributed amongst the players in many different ways, it's proof of nothing on the pitch by itself.

You could actually LOOK at the link I provided. Btw, Kasey Keller has 100 of them.. so that's a little over 150 among the rest of the American field players. And 5 players on the US squad have 14 or more caps. The rest (16 or so), have less.

So he was not "surrounded" by experience.

What about the other 4 field players?


I mean, really... I'll quote Drake at you:

[q=Drake]America is 9-2-1 against Mexico since 2000. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue that Mexico is the better team.[/q]

To add, the goal scored by Mexico in the Gold Cup finale was only the third goal scored by Mexico against the US since 1999, which encompasses 11 matches.

[LordShiva]

Can we get an "Imran arguing against [British poster] about football" sub-forum?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you think this thread is for?

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You were still expected to beat them. You were mauled by the Czech Rep, who lost to Ghana aswell. Again, don't make excuses, you just weren't good enough.

Maybe Ghana were better than people thought? Yeah, the US wasn't good enough and was in a Group of Death. Why this is mutually exclusive to you is fascinating.

Maybe the US weren't as good as people thought? It was a group of death, with the exception of the US.

Except that Brazil's B team all play at European clubs, and Mexico's B team (excepting Marquez) all play in Mexico, and still won.

And? Are you attempting to assert that Brazil's B team is better than Argentina's A team?

No. I'm attempting to show you that this was by far not Mexico's "experienced" team you seem to think it is, after you brought total # of caps into it, which proves nothing with this result and the lineup that started for Mexico.

Imran, DeMerit is at Watford and Bocanegra at Fulham for a reason, not Chelsea or Man Utd. The same reason Marquez plays at Barcelona and not Levante.

Are DeMerit and Bocanegra PLAYING against Chelsea and Man Utd on a regular basis? That makes my point. Greater competition they face daily than those playing in the MSL.

I never said they wouldn't improve playing against those teams, but the fact they play at Fulham or Watford, rather than a Chelsea or Man Utd means a hell of a lot.

You can play against Chelsea and Man Utd all you want, but if you only have the quality to be signed by a Fulham or Watford then it says a lot more. Thus claiming that because you have more European players you have a better 1st team is silly, when those European players are at Fulham, Watford and Sheff. Wed.

As I said, those 250 caps can be distributed amongst the players in many different ways, it's proof of nothing on the pitch by itself.

You could actually LOOK at the link I provided. Btw, Kasey Keller has 100 of them.. so that's a little over 150 among the rest of the American field players. And 5 players on the US squad have 14 or more caps. The rest (16 or so), have less.

As I've already shown, Mexico produced a result against Brazil with very little experience in their team, total # of caps proves very little as it is, but in a tournament where all squads are missing players for different reasons it's even less relevant. Then theres single players with huge # of caps that don't play, it's just no kind of reliable measurement here.

If the US just doesn't have the quality in depth fine, but trying to argue # of caps is some significant meter when other teams have produced results with little experience or butchered squads, it's clutching at straws.

So he was not "surrounded" by experience.

What about the other 4 field players?

How does 4 does equal surrounded? The other 7 had 20 caps between them, with 4 having none. Surrounded by inexperience more like.

I mean, really... I'll quote Drake at you:

[q=Drake]America is 9-2-1 against Mexico since 2000. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue that Mexico is the better team.[/q]

To add, the goal scored by Mexico in the Gold Cup finale was only the third goal scored by Mexico against the US since 1999, which encompasses 11 matches.

2 were played in Mexico, 1 was in S.Korea, 8 played in the US, see a similarity? Besides the obvious lack of the "Azteca factor", I won't go over why Mexico is at a disadvantage on US grounds again.

[Drake Tungsten]

Typical Englishman; rooting for your national team made you understandably wary of paying any heed to actual match results. Better to invent moral victories so you can ignore the fact that England hasn't won anything of consequence since 1966. I see it's not much of a stretch to apply the same logic to the Mexican team...

[Barnabas]

Yanks own Mexicans, even Mexicans agree