Copa América Centenario - June 3rd to 26th 2016

[Ruffian]

4 minutes ago, dsqpr said:

Playing it outside the CONMEBOL region damages the integrity of the tournament. This has been explained by others above far better than I could have done so I'll just leave it at that.

The refereeing has not been corrupt and there have always been teams outside of SA. Where the game is played is not going to make the game uncompetitive or unfair. Give details why the integrity is affected. Just because you like it the way it was before does not affect the integrity of the competition. In fact as far as we know this is a test tournament for expanding it in the future. Does this mean that all future Copa's will not have integrity. I still don't understand where it is losing integrity???

[AvroArrow]

1 hour ago, Ruffian said:

The refereeing has not been corrupt and there have always been teams outside of SA. Where the game is played is not going to make the game uncompetitive or unfair. Give details why the integrity is affected. Just because you like it the way it was before does not affect the integrity of the competition. In fact as far as we know this is a test tournament for expanding it in the future. Does this mean that all future Copa's will not have integrity. I still don't understand where it is losing integrity???

Because the location of the tournament matters.  This is the South American championship, and therefore, it should be played in a location where the average fan of those teams can attend the matches.  How is the average fan of Argentina, Peru, or some other South American team going to be able to attend a match in Chicago, Seattle, LA, New York or some other U.S city without spending a tonne of money to get there?  Would the EURO's ever be held in the United States?  Never.  Why?  Because it is a tournament consisting of European teams, made of European players, who are predominantly supported by European fans.

And even if the EURO's had to invite some extra teams to make up the numbers like the Copa does, they would never host the tournament in the United States, even though (and this is for Unnamed Trialist) the cultural and historical ties between the United States and Europe are far greater than any ties the U.S. has with the South American countries.

So it comes down to this:  CONMEBOL said, "Screw our fans in our own countries, we can use this tournament to sell higher priced tickets to wealthier fans, get more television money, and expand our brand by hosting this tournament in the United States."

[The Ref]

28 minutes ago, AvroArrow said:

 This is the South American championship, and therefore, it should be played in a location where the average fan of those teams can attend the matches. 

Couldn't agree more. 

[Ruffian]

1 hour ago, AvroArrow said:

Because the location of the tournament matters.  This is the South American championship, and therefore, it should be played in a location where the average fan of those teams can attend the matches.  How is the average fan of Argentina, Peru, or some other South American team going to be able to attend a match in Chicago, Seattle, LA, New York or some other U.S city without spending a tonne of money to get there?  Would the EURO's ever be held in the United States?  Never.  Why?  Because it is a tournament consisting of European teams, made of European players, who are predominantly supported by European fans.

And even if the EURO's had to invite some extra teams to make up the numbers like the Copa does, they would never host the tournament in the United States, even though (and this is for Unnamed Trialist) the cultural and historical ties between the United States and Europe are far greater than any ties the U.S. has with the South American countries.

So it comes down to this:  CONMEBOL said, "Screw our fans in our own countries, we can use this tournament to sell higher priced tickets to wealthier fans, get more television money, and expand our brand by hosting this tournament in the United States."

So basically nothing wrong sporting wise and you just don't like change. This may be how it is going forward. Will you always have an issue with it if this becomes a regular thing?

[AvroArrow]

47 minutes ago, Ruffian said:

So basically nothing wrong sporting wise and you just don't like change. This may be how it is going forward. Will you always have an issue with it if this becomes a regular thing?

Lol, you are completely missing the point.  Where did I say I don't like change? Feel free to keep coming up with your own interpretation of my posts....

[nolbertos]

5 hours ago, AvroArrow said:

Because the location of the tournament matters.  This is the South American championship, and therefore, it should be played in a location where the average fan of those teams can attend the matches.  How is the average fan of Argentina, Peru, or some other South American team going to be able to attend a match in Chicago, Seattle, LA, New York or some other U.S city without spending a tonne of money to get there?  Would the EURO's ever be held in the United States?  Never.  Why?  Because it is a tournament consisting of European teams, made of European players, who are predominantly supported by European fans.

And even if the EURO's had to invite some extra teams to make up the numbers like the Copa does, they would never host the tournament in the United States, even though (and this is for Unnamed Trialist) the cultural and historical ties between the United States and Europe are far greater than any ties the U.S. has with the South American countries.

So it comes down to this:  CONMEBOL said, "Screw our fans in our own countries, we can use this tournament to sell higher priced tickets to wealthier fans, get more television money, and expand our brand by hosting this tournament in the United States."

I'm gonna disagree with this post. Have you watched the last 3-4 Copa Americas?? The attendance has been really dismal, except where the home countries play.  Also their are HUUUGGEEE communities of immigrants in the US for CONMEBOL teams, that I doubt the average joe immigrant couldn'g attend.  The reason we saw some poor attendances in for example the Peru vs Haiti match at Century Link is there aren't big community hubs in thr West Coast for those countries.  Most of them are found in the Eastern US, maybe the next united CONMEBOL Copa America will pay attention to that.

Regarding moving to the US, one reason is obviously money.  Another is falling ratings and interest.  Copa America was already on life support in the 60's and 70's before CONMEBOL decided to host it in one country rather than all countries playing home and away matches in their respective stadiums, for logistical reasons.  I think they realized that having CONCACAF nations, more fans will come out and watch, as well as more revenues for everybody.  Just look at the Euro's being 24 teams now. To me that's oure greed.  Theirs already a World Cup with 32 teams, but I guess inviting all European teams makes it more value.

[Obinna]

19 minutes ago, dsqpr said:

In addition to all the points already made there is the issue that playing at home conveys an advantage. So now we have the de facto CONMEBOL championship conveying home advantage on a team not in that confederation, for the sake of money. It seems very clear to me that this damages the sporting integrity of the tournament.

I'm okay with this considering it's a one off. 

If this ever became a regular thing then there'd be something to talk about.

[The Ref]

Poor Mexico who lost to an inspired Chilean team who scored at will.  Will the 7-0 mean the sacking of Osorio.

[nolbertos]

Mexico playing fragile doesn't work in our favour as they could become in disarray in WCQ and lose the last game against Honduras, assuming we lose to them next game.  

[Blackdude]

3 hours ago, nolbertos said:

Mexico playing fragile doesn't work in our favour as they could become in disarray in WCQ and lose the last game against Honduras, assuming we lose to them next game.  

If we lose to Honduras in the next game, we're pretty much screwed.

[rightback]

6 hours ago, nolbertos said:

Mexico playing fragile doesn't work in our favour as they could become in disarray in WCQ and lose the last game against Honduras, assuming we lose to them next game.  

They might want to lay a beating on Honduras to get over this one. I quite enjoyed seeing the shoe on the other foot last night. It's been an interesting tournament.

[aloyol]

3 hours ago, Blackdude said:

If we lose to Honduras in the next game, we're pretty much screwed.

True. It will then come down to how much we can score against an already eliminated El Salvador (assuming they don't win against Mexico) and we'll also need a Mexico win over Honduras. Not a really nice scenario IMHO.

[RJB]

If we lose to Honduras, don't they then own the tiebreaker?  Therefore eliminating us?

[Gian-Luca]

58 minutes ago, RJB said:

If we lose to Honduras, don't they then own the tiebreaker?  Therefore eliminating us?

No, it would come down to goal differential in the event that Canada loses to Honduras, then Honduras loses to Mexico and we beat El Salvador. The tie breaker would be goal differential, not head to head (since the head to head would be even).

[BearcatSA]

I honestly think we can grind out a result in Honduras, so long as our key guys are available.

[Watchmen]

On 6/17/2016 at 11:38 AM, nolbertos said:

I remember that Jeffrey.  I was the one that broke the news in the V-board when Canada got invited in 2001.  I never would've imagined that Canada, of all countries, would get an invite, adn then Kevin Pipe and his CSA cronies, decide to not go, because of "security" concerns, as if Canadian players were playing in top teams in the EPL, La Liga, etc.  Honduras took our place and had a great tournament (3rd place finish), I recall, which probably contributed to the rise of Honduras from being equal to Guatemala for along time in futbolling sense, to now, making the Hex the last 2 World Cups and qualifying to the 2010 World Cup.  If we had taken that opportunity, who knows where we would be instead.  This Copa America would benefited the Canadian public and maybe we'd have been playing more attacking, rather than playing Floroball and defensive over the last 15 years.  If Mont Vic in power at CONCACAF, I hope he convinces CONMEBOL to give us an automatic invite, as playing against the likes of Ecuador, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Chile, would help Canadian player realize the skillset required to have as a futbol player.

I'm pretty sure Canada accepted the invite, got to Colombia, the tournament was called off due to security concerns, Canada sent everyone back to their clubs, and then (under some pressure from the TV rights holders and come security guarantees from the Colombian government) the tournament was back on again, but it was too late to recall the Canadian players.  Costa Rica actually took Canada's spot.  Argentina withdraw just before the start as well, due to their players getting death threats, and Honduras took their spot.

But...yeah, I was really disappointed Canada didn't play in this tournament.  There could have been a lot of benefits to it.  Or at the very least, another major tournament for Canada soccer to have participated in.

[RJB]

11 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

No, it would come down to goal differential in the event that Canada loses to Honduras, then Honduras loses to Mexico and we beat El Salvador. The tie breaker would be goal differential, not head to head (since the head to head would be even).

haha, right, we beat them didn't we?  (Bad fan award, perhaps?)

OK, so the first tie break is head to head.  If we lose, it goes to goal difference.  Goal difference overall, or vs. Honduras?

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 19/6/2016 at 2:14 PM, rightback said:

They might want to lay a beating on Honduras to get over this one. I quite enjoyed seeing the shoe on the other foot last night. It's been an interesting tournament.

I think this is the likely scenario, they will want to win regardless even though they have nothing to play for, they will go out to amend that terrible loss.

Better for us, we need Mexico to beat Honduras and we do the rest.

[DJT]

15 hours ago, RJB said:

haha, right, we beat them didn't we?  (Bad fan award, perhaps?)

OK, so the first tie break is head to head.  If we lose, it goes to goal difference.  Goal difference overall, or vs. Honduras?

The first tiebreaker is not head-to-head, it's overall goal difference, followed by overall goals scored. Then comes head-to-head points, goal difference, goals scored, and away goals scored (if only two teams are tied). Finally there is a neutral-site playoff.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/59/22/68/regulationsfwc2018russia_short_e_v210415_neutral.pdf - page 27

[RJB]

I'm actually quite surprised that head-to-head is not the first tie break.  In fact, when the USA won group A at the Centenario, I was actually very surprised given that they'd beaten Colombia. 

Fill the net against El Salvador is the goal then, no matter what.

[The Ref]

Do I dare to ask what is the U.S. doing in Copa America Centenario.

[RJB]

So happy to see the US get thrashed by Argentina.  I guess their own special Copa didn't work out as planned.  They are an overrated squad, led by an overrated manager, and an overrated captain.  A just reward, and I hope to see another thrashing in the consolation.

In the past I've rooted for them, particularly in the World Cup, but I just don't find this side compelling anymore.

[-Hammer-]

2 minutes ago, RJB said:

So happy to see the US get thrashed by Argentina.  I guess their own special Copa didn't work out as planned.  They are an overrated squad, led by an overrated manager, and an overrated captain.  A just reward, and I hope to see another thrashing in the consolation.

In the past I've rooted for them, particularly in the World Cup, but I just don't find this side compelling anymore.

Here is my take on it.

1. The US media needs to understand that it does not benefit their national team by putting blinders on and not call out the level that the US National Team plays at. The US is not a world power in soccer, MLS is not one of the top leagues in the world, soccer development in the US is not exceptional. It's irritating as all heck to witness this kind of absurd flag waving and even more irritating to watch the scapegoating after the fact.

2. It's losses like these that make me question even more when so many people want to cement our development to the MLS (or rather the USL, MLS's farm league since MLS has pitiful Canadian player requirements) when it's abundantly clear that MLS isn't even capable of generating strong enough US talent, nevermind Canadian talent where we are nothing more then an afterthought. I mean, this wasn't just a 0-4 loss, but not a single shot on goal this game with 6 starts from MLS. Maybe I'm a bit out of line on this, as Argentina is probably the best in the world, but after a generation of MLS being around, the US has only seen the smallest improvements. Why people still want to rip into the idea of another development path in the CPL, perplexes me even more.

[nolbertos]

58 minutes ago, -Hammer- said:

Here is my take on it.

1. The US media needs to understand that it does not benefit their national team by putting blinders on and not call out the level that the US National Team plays at. The US is not a world power in soccer, MLS is not one of the top leagues in the world, soccer development in the US is not exceptional. It's irritating as all heck to witness this kind of absurd flag waving and even more irritating to watch the scapegoating after the fact.

2. It's losses like these that make me question even more when so many people want to cement our development to the MLS (or rather the USL, MLS's farm league since MLS has pitiful Canadian player requirements) when it's abundantly clear that MLS isn't even capable of generating strong enough US talent, nevermind Canadian talent where we are nothing more then an afterthought. I mean, this wasn't just a 0-4 loss, but not a single shot on goal this game with 6 starts from MLS. Maybe I'm a bit out of line on this, as Argentina is probably the best in the world, but after a generation of MLS being around, the US has only seen the smallest improvements. Why people still want to rip into the idea of another development path in the CPL, perplexes me even more.

I'm not as gung ho for the US, but come on, man, but seriously, attacking MLS?? MLS has only been in existence 20 years and the Men's team is reaping rewards that Canada has yet to do consistently.  Since MLS was in existance, the US and its MLS players have made all World Cups, made it to a WC quarter-final, won the Gold Cup many times, made the Copa America semi-finals twice and made a Confederations Cup Final.  Canada has one lone Gold Cup win, since MLS has been in existance, USL teams have failed to catch on in the Prairies (see Calgary Storm and Edmonton Aviators) and we have been thrashed 7-1 by "Honduras" of all teams.  We'd be stupid not to use MLS and USL resources to at least give some local kids playing time.  You should ask why can't the Winnipegs, Edmontons, Calgarys, and Saskatoons of the world won't support their local USL clubs, when they were there?? It seems to be that Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, always had futbol support in some capacity and now them being in MLS, gives Canadian coaches and kids insights on how to at least achieve the US's goals so far. The old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, related to Canadian futbol

 

edit:. I know Winnipeg and Saskatchewan have never had USL teams but my point was why nobody in the past bothered to start a team there??

[Blackdude]

37 minutes ago, -Hammer- said:

2. It's losses like these that make me question even more when so many people want to cement our development to the MLS (or rather the USL, MLS's farm league since MLS has pitiful Canadian player requirements) when it's abundantly clear that MLS isn't even capable of generating strong enough US talent, nevermind Canadian talent where we are nothing more then an afterthought. I mean, this wasn't just a 0-4 loss, but not a single shot on goal this game with 6 starts from MLS. Maybe I'm a bit out of line on this, as Argentina is probably the best in the world, but after a generation of MLS being around, the US has only seen the smallest improvements. Why people still want to rip into the idea of another development path in the CPL, perplexes me even more.

The US still have beaten some good teams in Ecuador (1st in WCQ right now) and Paraguay (Sure not that great in WCQ, but no slouches) I think that the loss says that the US is far from Argentina, but to say that they haven't progressed in 20 years is false. They have beaten Mexico in Gold Cup since, things they never did. I'm more interested to see what they do in the 3rd place match than in the semis against Argentina. They lost to the #1 team in the world badly yes, but to expect a different result against a team that great is foolish. Can they play with a good CONMEBOL team in Colombia or Chile and a team that is probably top 10 in the world? I doubt it, but to say that MLS isn't strong enough to beat Argentina can be said for pretty much every league except 3 maybe 4. And if you're saying that if MLS players aren't good enough to beat Argentina, why should we even start CPL by that same token. I do think that more pro clubs is needed here, but to say something like that gives the impression that we don't need it.