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

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because Azteca is the ONLY place Mexico plays in Mexico because of the elevation advantage.

How many times...

The Azteca is Mexico's national stadium, and it has, by a margin of 30,000 seats, the biggest capacity in Mexico.

Why on earth would they play anywhere else unless they could fill the Azteca?

It shows nothing about the relative strengths of the teams.

Neither does it playing all the games in the US, as shown by the obvious leaning of the results.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because Azteca is the ONLY place Mexico plays in Mexico because of the elevation advantage. It shows nothing about the relative strengths of the teams.

[Maquiladora]

US win in the US, Mexico win in Mexico. Azteca is Mexico's home. US don't want to play in Azteca.

How is the Azteca not involved?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Very basically, but yes. There are other points but I'm really not interested in going into them all again

Well, it's a bad argument . Talking about Azteca is entirely a red herring which has little to do with anything.

[Maquiladora]

I had a longer post here replying to your previous points but it's getting pretty tiring now, and we're way off track so I've removed it.

I mean what exactly is your argument? That the US's record against Mexico is deceptive because most of the games have been on US's home soil?

Very basically, but yes. There are other points but I'm really not interested in going into them all again

[Imran Siddiqui]

Germany doesn't have a national stadium (so is used to moving around Germany, just as the US is used to moving around to play it's home games), bitter rivals, close (no real travel problems), I'd say it makes a good comparison.

You've missed a key bit, namely most of the soccer fans in a particular area of Germany being England fans.

Doesn't the fact that host nations do better than expected in WC's also mean something for national stadiums?

Not necessarily. Why does one follow from the other? To continue on this...

I doubt we would have seen the same playing all their games at Old Trafford.

Why in the Hell not?!

You said the US desperately wanted the game moved, and I assumed to a US stadium, as even I know it's totally unacceptable on Mexico's part to play in another Mexican stadium. I was assuming the obvious that the US would know that too.

I'm not entirely sure how that argument worked even inside your head .

They wanted the game moved from Azteca and in return, they'd move the US "home game" to Los Angeles, where it'd be a de factor Mexican home game. So basically Mexico trades Azteca (and correspondingly, the American home game at a cold weather site in, usually, late fall) for two Mexican home games at closer to sea level.

As for the Jalisco, they wouldn't have as big an advantage as Azteca (for many reasons), but it would certainly be better than LA.

I doubt it would, especially if the LA game was at the Rose Bowl.


I mean what exactly is your argument? That the US's record against Mexico is deceptive because most of the games have been on US's home soil? Well, when half of those games have a 90% pro-Mexican crowd, how is that a US advantage? Because they didn't play them in Azteca? That's quite a red herring right there. Azteca has really little to nothing to do with the relative strengths of both teams. Because, and this is the key, the US doesn't have an advantage over Mexico in games in cities like LA or Chicago. If anything, the game is neutral (or actually, leans pro-Mexico). If you are claiming that a game in LA leans pro-US, from the neutral position, then you are mental.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This just backups the fact there is no solid point either way. It was a desperate argument from the beginning.

You mean like comparing England playing in Germany to Mexico playing in LA?

Germany doesn't have a national stadium (so is used to moving around Germany, just as the US is used to moving around to play it's home games), bitter rivals, close (no real travel problems), I'd say it makes a good comparison.

Imran, every game they played outside the national stadium were expected to be easy games. South Africa, Denmark and Paraguay in the 2nd round. It's so f-in obvious.

So you'd think they'd have lost the bigger games if they didn't play in the Stade de France?

How would I know. I do know they get a bigger advantage at the Stade de France than Marseille though.

Being host gives you a big advantage and that's obvious from the performances of the hosts over the years, it however doesn't give you the cup. That should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about football.

You were the one bringing up the hosts winning in their "national stadiums"

So, did you have a point again?

Doesn't the fact that host nations do better than expected in WC's also mean something for national stadiums?

Then there's other tournaments where the host typically does well. England were pretty good at Euro 96, playing every game at Wembley. I doubt we would have seen the same playing all their games at Old Trafford.

That's poor form Imran, putting words into people's mouths.

Says the person that claims I said the US wanted Mexico to move their games from Azteca to cities in the US!! That's rich!

You said the US desperately wanted the game moved, and I assumed to a US stadium, as even I know it's totally unacceptable on Mexico's part to play in another Mexican stadium. I was assuming the obvious that the US would know that too.

If I can see why it's totally unacceptable for Mexico to play their home games in another Mexican stadium, what makes you think the US team can't? And they knew that when offering a move?

Not what you said, I assumed what the US team supposedly said.

I said it was obvious if you compare the results between playing in LA and Azteca that they don't feel at home in LA. There is a difference.

Yeah, the difference called elevation. Obviously they won't be as dominant at sea level. I wonder if they played in Guadalajara, you'd claim they didn't "feel at home" because they weren't as Azteca.

As for the Jalisco, they wouldn't have as big an advantage as Azteca (for many reasons), but it would certainly be better than LA.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The true one... the one Hornby wrote .

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
For example, "Fever Pitch" provides a good distinction.

Which version of Fever Pitch do you mean?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This just backups the fact there is no solid point either way. It was a desperate argument from the beginning.

You mean like comparing England playing in Germany to Mexico playing in LA?

Imran, every game they played outside the national stadium were expected to be easy games. South Africa, Denmark and Paraguay in the 2nd round. It's so f-in obvious.

So you'd think they'd have lost the bigger games if they didn't play in the Stade de France? The reason the QF, SF, and F was in the Stade was to put the home team in the biggest stadium, so more people can see the home squad.

Being host gives you a big advantage and that's obvious from the performances of the hosts over the years, it however doesn't give you the cup. That should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about football.

You were the one bringing up the hosts winning in their "national stadiums"

So, did you have a point again?

That's poor form Imran, putting words into people's mouths.

Says the person that claims I said the US wanted Mexico to move their games from Azteca to cities in the US!! That's rich!

I said it was obvious if you compare the results between playing in LA and Azteca that they don't feel at home in LA. There is a difference.

Yeah, the difference called elevation. Obviously they won't be as dominant at sea level. I wonder if they played in Guadalajara, you'd claim they didn't "feel at home" because they weren't as Azteca.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The same fans could easily attend home games.

They could, but there are plenty of non-rabid fans also at the home parks. For example, "Fever Pitch" provides a good distinction. Some areas of home fans are absolutely crazy. These are also the same people who go to away games. However there are other parts of the home stadium where people are not as bat**** nuts and tend to go with their families and whatnot.

This just backups the fact there is no solid point either way. It was a desperate argument from the beginning.

Ask England in 66, Argentina in 78, or France in 98 if it's garbage.

Mexico doesn't feel right at home, that's so obvious from the results compared to the Azteca.

It's garbage. Absolute and complete garbage. France in 98 didn't have problems winning in other venues than their "national stadium" (whether it be Marseille or Lyon or wherever - they didn't lose a match in '98 regardless of the stadium).

Imran, every game they played outside the national stadium were expected to be easy games. South Africa, Denmark and Paraguay in the 2nd round. It's so f-in obvious.

They played their quarter-final (Italy), semi-final (Croatia) and final (Brazil) at the Stade de France.

Oh, and btw, they were the first home country to win the WC since Argentina in '78. What's that, 4 World Cups in the interm?

Some teams aren't capable of beating the opposition to win a WC no matter if they're made hosts. In many cases the host does a lot better than expected though, that's just a fact.

Being host gives you a big advantage and that's obvious from the performances of the hosts over the years, it however doesn't give you the cup. That should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about football.

I fail to see how not playing in Azteca = not feeling like they are at home.

So if Mexico played a match in Estadio Jalisco in Guadalajara, as they may in any tournament on Mexican soil, they wouldn't feel like they were at home? Really? So home is only one stadium and the rest are nothing? Please.

That's poor form Imran, putting words into people's mouths.

I said it was obvious if you compare the results between playing in LA and Azteca that they don't feel at home in LA. There is a difference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The same fans could easily attend home games.

They could, but there are plenty of non-rabid fans also at the home parks. For example, "Fever Pitch" provides a good distinction. Some areas of home fans are absolutely crazy. These are also the same people who go to away games. However there are other parts of the home stadium where people are not as bat**** nuts and tend to go with their families and whatnot.

Ask England in 66, Argentina in 78, or France in 98 if it's garbage.

Mexico doesn't feel right at home, that's so obvious from the results compared to the Azteca.

It's garbage. Absolute and complete garbage. France in 98 didn't have problems winning in other venues than their "national stadium" (whether it be Marseille or Lyon or wherever - they didn't lose a match in '98 regardless of the stadium). Oh, and btw, they were the first home country to win the WC since Argentina in '78. What's that, 4 World Cups in the interm?

I fail to see how not playing in Azteca = not feeling like they are at home.

So if Mexico played a match in Estadio Jalisco in Guadalajara, as they may in any tournament on Mexican soil, they wouldn't feel like they were at home? Really? So home is only one stadium and the rest are nothing? Please.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, fans who are gung ho enough to purchase plane tickets and take that much time off work are generally going to be more rabid.

The same fans could easily attend home games.

Granted, the Mexico City fans are probably more rabid than the Los Angeles ones, but the LA ones aren't all that far behind.

Then they are missing out on more rabid fans at the Azteca.

You don't exactly get all that many fans from Mexico traveling to LA (all the seats are already bought up).

Maybe because the more rabid Mexican fan can't afford to travel (or even get into the US), let alone afford the tickets.

For all the "National Stadium" garbage, I think Mexico feels right right at home at LA.

Ask England in 66, Argentina in 78, or France in 98 if it's garbage.

Mexico doesn't feel right at home, that's so obvious from the results compared to the Azteca.

Like I pointed out, if there was a Gold Cup in Mexico, they'd have to play in other stadiums in the country as well.

So what?

[Kropotkin]

Well, fans who are gung ho enough to purchase plane tickets and take that much time off work are generally going to be more rabid.

A few weeks ago I spent 8-9 hours on a bus for a mid season draw. The man next to me is kind of a legend when it comes to travelling. For example, In 1990 (notice the year) he got from Gothenburg to Moscow by train to see a UEFA cup match against Torpedo Moskva. At half time they russians had a 4-0 lead and he couldn't take it any more and went for a late night bender on the streets of the soviet capital instead. Nothing rabid about him though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, fans who are gung ho enough to purchase plane tickets and take that much time off work are generally going to be more rabid.

Granted, the Mexico City fans are probably more rabid than the Los Angeles ones, but the LA ones aren't all that far behind. You don't exactly get all that many fans from Mexico traveling to LA (all the seats are already bought up).

For all the "National Stadium" garbage, I think Mexico feels right right at home at LA. Like I pointed out, if there was a Gold Cup in Mexico, they'd have to play in other stadiums in the country as well.