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

[Maquiladora]

So now traveling fans are more rabid and that makes all the difference.

Born and bred football fans from the poor suburbs of Mexico City are FAR more "rabid" than expats in LA showing national pride, AND they're in their national stadium.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
That's all nice Imran, but you can still replace "90%" in place of "majority" and my post would still work.

No, I doubt it would. You'd have to be silly to claim that 90% English fans in Germany (especially in somewhere like Allianz Stadium) wouldn't be as effective as 90% English fans in Wembley. Especially since the fans that travel tend to be more rabid than those who don't.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Woo-hoo! Arsenal sign Eduardo da Silva.

Juve sold Camoranesi and Bojinov

But Cannavaro is rumoured to be on his way back

[Maquiladora]

That's all nice Imran, but you can still replace "90%" in place of "majority" and my post would still work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If England plays in Germany and has 90% of the fans...

You really don't understand the composition of the crowd in Los Angeles. It isn't merely a majority, but 90% of the fans rooting for Mexico. A small smattering of American fans in some corner of the stadium.

Really, if you had no clue which latitute you were standing on and were plopped in the middle of the stadium, you'd swear you were in Mexico.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What bollocks. So England has a bigger advantage at Wembley than, say, Anfield or Emirates Stadium, etc, simply because they feel better at a "national football stadium"? What, the refs are better paid off at the national stadiums than other stadiums in the country? Give me a break.

Mexico aren't playing in their equivalent of Anfield or Emirates though, they're playing in a rival country.

England play in Germany (lets say Cologne as it's close) against Germany, and England has the majority of fans.

England play Germany at Wembley and England has the majority of fans.

If you think they're both the same to England and Germany you're crazy.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
And Henry is out of England.

The damned departed

[Drake Tungsten]

And Henry is out of England.

[Cort Haus]

Woo-hoo! Arsenal sign Eduardo da Silva.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What bollocks. So England has a bigger advantage at Wembley than, say, Anfield or Emirates Stadium, etc, simply because they feel better at a "national football stadium"? What, the refs are better paid off at the national stadiums than other stadiums in the country? Give me a break.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They'd lose a bit of money for a far more advantageous "away" match against the US in qualifying. Giving them a better opportunity to finish first in CONCACAF qualifying... better for a gaining a "seed" in setting the groups.

Mexico would lose at least 40,000 seats playing in any other Mexican stadium significantly below the Azteca's elevation (Jalisco in Guadalajara). That is not a "bit".

One game proves what? That Ghana are consistently better than the US too? Mexico went further in the 2006 WC a year ago, which if worth anything is still more than one game 5 years ago.

Actually it's 7 years of history.

Actually you brought up the one game in a neutral stadium 5 years ago, so i brought up the last world cup 1 year ago, which is equally (if not more) relevant to the quality of a team now.

But for some reason you think the geographical boundaries where the stadium resides determines everything.

That's great but I never said it determines everything. However it does more than hold the majority of the home fans.

There is a reason England have a bigger advantage at Wembley than in say Germany but with the same majority of fans, the same for Italy at Stadio Olimpico, France at the Stade de France, Chile or Portugal at their "Nacional", etc.

Of course the US doesn't have a national football stadium, maybe that's why you don't understand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Mexican FA would lose money for nothing playing in a much smaller Mx stadium. Again more cash from playing their games in a big US stadium.

They'd lose a bit of money for a far more advantageous "away" match against the US in qualifying. Giving them a better opportunity to finish first in CONCACAF qualifying... better for a gaining a "seed" in setting the groups.

One game proves what? That Ghana are consistently better than the US too? Mexico went further in the 2006 WC a year ago, which if worth anything is still more than one game 5 years ago.

Actually it's 7 years of history. But for some reason you think the geographical boundaries where the stadium resides determines everything. I wonder if in your world Germany won the 2006 WC? And South Korea or Japan won the 2002 version?

Furthermore a number of those games in the last 7 years were in front of pro-Mexican sides.

The whole argument with Azteca is nothing but a red herring. You are arguing that the stadium simply being in the US, even though 90% of the fans are for Mexico, is an advantage for the US team. That's silly.

Saying that the US can't win in Azteca and that shows that Mexico is the better team is as silly as saying Mexico can't win in Foxboro in the late fall and that shows that the US is the better team. If anything, games in Chicago/LA, etc are weighed more towards Mexican team in advantage (though I'd entertain the argument that they are 'neutral') and the US keeps beating the Mexicans there. Though, there is a reason the US tries to not to schedule their games there against Mexico anymore... because there is no home field advantage.

Oh, and as for Ghana.. they are an incredibly talented team and I believe they are probably the equals of the US and Mexico.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's probably because they suck and that everyone knows that - except most englishmen. That they have managed all on their own.

I agree.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Here's a fun fact that I just dug up. The Azteca was opened in 1966, the same year England won their last World Cup. The English haven't won anything since.

That's probably because they suck and that everyone knows that - except most englishmen. That they have managed all on their own.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I've stated how many inexperienced players played against Brazil, I don't know what more proof you need Mexico is employing the same policy.

And yet the core of the team (ie, the 4 players you haven't mentioned) are far more experienced than the US's... by a good deal. I think the vast differences in the number of total caps shows you that they aren't interested in the same policy.

Unless you really think that they are just bringing along the big cap people just to hang out and have a vacation or something?

Yeah, the 4 of 11 I haven't mentioned. You already claimed the 7 inexperienced were "surrounded" by experience in the other 4 players, I still don't know how that works, are they in 2 positions at once covering all the inexperienced players mistakes?

Fact is Mexico has more strength in depth, you said it yourself, but it's still clearly employing the same policy of blooding inexperienced players, which cannot be denied as shown against Brazil.

Fulham (nearly relegated), Watford (relegated), West Ham (should have been relegated) and Sheff. Wed. (wtf?) ARE worse than Mexico's best teams.

I'm not sure how much agreement you'd get on that from folks on your side of the pond.

Maybe because they don't get Mexican football on TV every week like I do?

If I said that I'm sure you could quote me on it. The US team is desperate not to play at Azteca and asked for games to be moved to OTHER Mexican venues. And in return, they'd move their home games to LA, which is basically a home game for Mexico.

There is no stadium anywhere near as big in Mx, nevermind below the elevation of the Azteca. It couldn't happen.

The Mexican FA would lose money for nothing playing in a much smaller Mx stadium. Again more cash from playing their games in a big US stadium.

they are losing out football-wise (albeit on one or two results a year) by not playing at the Azteca, that's just a fact and the US team knows it.

Yeah, because of the elevation. Put them on a neutral site at anywhere near sea level, and the US wins, as they did in South Korea.

One game proves what? That Ghana are consistently better than the US too? Mexico went further in the 2006 WC a year ago, which if worth anything is still more than one game 5 years ago.