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

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

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]

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.

[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]

The true one... the one Hornby wrote .

[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.