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

[Barnabas]

The way I see it, Mexico is a better team than the USA, but the USA owns Mexico.

Something similar to

Sampras (number one for 6 years, 14 slams) was a better player than Krajicek, but Krajicek (only one slam, highest ranking 4) owned Sampras his best years

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=S402&playernum2=K214

Sometimes you own someone who is better than you, due to being an uncomfortable match up, psychological reasons etc

[Maquiladora]

Mexicans do have a feeling of inferiority which spills over into their humour in a similar way to us Brits, but perhaps not so similar to us, into their football.

Which (among other effects) is why I believe we'd have seen a much more even spread of results had half the games been at Azteca.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

It is a far, far, far more experienced team than the US squad. Which purposely brought in young players with little experience to get some play at the international level.

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.

So are you arguing that the MSL is better than mid to lower EPL? Btw, you forgot Everton and West Ham.

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.

At least half of the matches in the US should be deemed Mexican home games. Any game in LA is treated by BOTH squads as a Mexican home game. That's just the way it is and both sides will tell you same.

The only reason you think Mexico is at a disadvantage in LA is because you don't know what you are talking about.

Which (among other effects) is why I believe we'd have seen a much more even spread of results had half the games been at Azteca.

Only problem is if any of the Gold Cups were in Mexico, the Mexican team couldn't play all of its games at Azteca. It'd have to stray from their elevation fortress every once in a while.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

It is a far, far, far more experienced team than the US squad. Which purposely brought in young players with little experience to get some play at the international level.

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.

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.

So are you arguing that the MSL is better than mid to lower EPL? Btw, you forgot Everton and West Ham.

Fulham (nearly relegated), Watford (relegated), West Ham (should have been relegated) and Sheff. Wed. (wtf?) ARE worse than Mexico's best teams. So yes, using the bottom of the EPL (and lower) to prove the US 1st team is better is not a very strong argument.

The rest of the US players playing in Europe are easily compared to Mexican players in Europe.

It's a shame there seems to be an apprehension from Mexican players to go to Europe, some are certainly good enough for top clubs. As an outsider it seems to me they just like to enjoy the huge fame at home, and get paid very well anyway. Compare that with US players who get very little attention from the media at home compared to other sports, not to mention their wages compared to European clubs.

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.

At least half of the matches in the US should be deemed Mexican home games. Any game in LA is treated by BOTH squads as a Mexican home game. That's just the way it is and both sides will tell you same.

Imran, you were the one saying the US team is desperate not to play at the Azteca and asked for the games to be moved to US venues, so it's clearly NOT the same for Mexico to play in LA as in the Azteca.

Which (among other effects) is why I believe we'd have seen a much more even spread of results had half the games been at Azteca.

Only problem is if any of the Gold Cups were in Mexico, the Mexican team couldn't play all of its games at Azteca. It'd have to stray from their elevation fortress every once in a while.

Elevation fortress Actually many stadiums in Mexico are at pretty high elevation.

The unsuitable pitches (plus other factors) in the US are just as much a hindrance for Mexico as the elevation would be for the US.

For whatever reason the Mexican FA chooses to play in the US (profit perhaps I don't know for sure), but 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.

[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?

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.

Though I do wonder how far your love for North American teams go. MLS teams played MSL teams very tough in the CONCACAF Champions' Cup this year for one.

Imran, you were the one saying the US team is desperate not to play at the Azteca and asked for the games to be moved to US venues, so it's clearly NOT the same for Mexico to play in LA as in the Azteca.

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.

They'd basically trade a home game with home cheering fans for not having to play at the elevation of Azteca.

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.

[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. It was also the site of Maradona's glorious Hand of God/Goal of the Century victory over the English. Maybe the English have more to fear from the Azteca than the Yanks do...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Cort Haus]

Woo-hoo! Arsenal sign Eduardo da Silva.

[Drake Tungsten]

And Henry is out of England.

[Cort Haus]

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

The damned departed