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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Because playing in stadiums geographically in the US with 90% Mexico fans is really a US advantage!

And how many times...

Azteca is at a incredibly high elevation, which is why the "obvious leaning of the results" is a bull**** argument to make to try to prove that the Mexican team is better than the US one.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

Because playing in stadiums geographically in the US with 90% Mexico fans is really a US advantage!

Because the US team regularly travels around stadiums in the US to play it's home games, and is quite comfortable with traveling to LA twice as well.

Azteca is at a incredibly high elevation, which is why the "obvious leaning of the results" is a bull**** argument to make to try to prove that the Mexican team is better than the US one.

I'm not trying to prove the Mexican team is better than the US, because it can't be proven. And neither can it the other way, not least because of the obvious bias of the venues.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the US team regularly travels around stadiums in the US to play it's home games, and is quite comfortable with traveling to LA twice as well.

Mexico is also quite comfortable traveling to LA as well. Especially since they fill up the stands with their supporters. Mexico also plays friendlies against other countries IN LOS ANGELES. For example, in May 2006 they played against Venezuela in LA.

Also in March 2006, Mexico played Ghana IN DALLAS. The venue was requested by Mexico both times.

I'm not trying to prove the Mexican team is better than the US, because it can't be proven. And neither can it the other way, not least because of the obvious bias of the venues.

Because, obviously when you have 90% of your fans in a stadium, you are at a disadvantage in the venue .

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because the US team regularly travels around stadiums in the US to play it's home games, and is quite comfortable with traveling to LA twice as well.

Mexico is also quite comfortable traveling to LA as well. Especially since they fill up the stands with their supporters.

1) You admitted yourself Mexican supporters from Mexico are more rabid than ones in LA.

2) Mexico doesn't regularly travel around the US to play it's home games. The US team does, and many US players also do for their clubs.

Mexico also plays friendlies against other countries IN LOS ANGELES. For example, in May 2006 they played against Venezuela in LA.

Also in March 2006, Mexico played Ghana IN DALLAS. The venue was requested by Mexico both times.

Money.

I'm not trying to prove the Mexican team is better than the US, because it can't be proven. And neither can it the other way, not least because of the obvious bias of the venues.

Because, obviously when you have 90% of your fans in a stadium, you are at a disadvantage in the venue .

Already explained why LA is not a Mexican home game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

1) You admitted yourself Mexican supporters from Mexico are more rabid than ones in LA.

Are they more rabid than American fans in LA? 90% of the fans, more rabid than the other teams' fans (which only make up 10% of the stadium), seems like an advantage to me.

2) Mexico doesn't regularly travel around the US to play it's home games. The US team does, and many US players also do for their clubs.

So... that means they are more familiar with the placement of the stands? What?

Money.

They can't get money in Mexico, for stadiums with FAR higher capacity (Pizza Hut Park in Dallas fits about 30,000 at max)? Really?

Already explained why LA is not a Mexican home game.

And it was entirely unconvincing.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

1) You admitted yourself Mexican supporters from Mexico are more rabid than ones in LA.

Are they more rabid than American fans in LA? 90% of the fans, more rabid than the other teams' fans (which only make up 10% of the stadium), seems like an advantage to me.

That makes no sense.

The overwhelming majority of Mexican fans in LA travel from LA (or around the US), not from Mexico.

2) Mexico doesn't regularly travel around the US to play it's home games. The US team does, and many US players also do for their clubs.

So... that means they are more familiar with the placement of the stands? What?

Mexico has a home stadium, in Mexico. The US national team's home is traveling around US stadiums. Mexico is not playing at their home stadium in the US, despite being classed as a "home game". Someone has an advantage. Work it out.

Money.

They can't get money in Mexico, for stadiums with FAR higher capacity (Pizza Hut Park in Dallas fits about 30,000 at max)? Really?

The Azteca (or any big stadium) wouldn't get the attendance needed against Venezuela or Ghana, so it would be pointless when you get far more money in the US.

Already explained why LA is not a Mexican home game.

And it was entirely unconvincing.

Because you don't know enough to take it in.

Like for example the advantage of a national football stadium over another stadium in the same country. Yet somehow they're the same thing to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The overwhelming majority of Mexican fans in LA travel from LA (or around the US), not from Mexico.

Are they more rabid than US fans in LA? You are avoiding the question. Anyone watching a match in LA will immediately note that the Mexican fans are more supportive, yelling, banging drums than the US fans in attendance.

Mexico has a home stadium, in Mexico. The US national team's home is traveling around US stadiums. Mexico is not playing at their home stadium in the US, despite being classed as a "home game". Someone has an advantage. Work it out.

Yes, Mexico has any advantage due to the crowd being overwhelmingly pro-Mexico. This is not baseball where the dimensions of the field so vary that you have to know how it is before you play there.

Besides, the US hardly ever plays in the Rose Bowl, where US-Mexico matches usually take place. In LA, the US team usually plays in the smaller Home Depot Center.

The Azteca (or any big stadium) wouldn't get the attendance needed against Venezuela or Ghana, so it would be pointless when you get far more money in the US.

Why wouldn't it? Seeing the national team in a friendly wouldn't attract fans?!

Because you don't know enough to take it in.

Like for example the advantage of a national football stadium over another stadium in the same country. Yet somehow they're the same thing to you.

Any "advantage" of a national football stadium over another stadium in the same country is bull****. You want to back it up show me facts (comparative records of teams in the "national stadium" compared to others in the same country), not just your subjective belief that it is.

England doesn't have more of an advantage in Wembley than they do at Anfield, no matter how much you've convinced yourself they do.

[Maquiladora]

Imran, again I could counter everything you've just said (as I have done easily before, which is why it's continued for so long), but in the end we won't agree.

I'll be the bigger man again and offer you the final reply, but I won't respond this time I promise

[Drake Tungsten]

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you two? How can you still be arguing about this?