Jump to content

The Importance of Alphonso Davies


jpg75

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

Yeah. Mexico have brought an A squad. Rumor is that Jamaica is bringing an A squad. Costa Rica and Honduras will probably bring A squads. It's really only the USA treating this as a B tournament.

They still have a very solid B team, so it will be interesting to see how this pays off for them.

With Jamaica I expected a A squad. They are doing a Surinam-esque recruitment of European players but unlike every other team in the region, they were neither in Nations League nor WCQ so they have had no opportunity to get their new players acclimatized to each other in competitive matches.

Mexico on the other hand has called more of a 1st choice squad than I expected and with home field advantage in the US will be difficult to beat

Edited by Gian-Luca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

 I got into footy a few years after the 86 WC, and watching Hastings banging in the winning goal in the GC final

To be pedantic, Hastings actually scored his “golden goal” in the quarterfinals. Canada had to win another two matches to capture the 2000 Gold Cup.

But, agreed, it was one of the most iconic moments in our soccer history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Treppy2 said:

To be pedantic, Hastings actually scored his “golden goal” in the quarterfinals. Canada had to win another two matches to capture the 2000 Gold Cup.

But, agreed, it was one of the most iconic moments in our soccer history.

Ha.  My bad.  My most vivid memory of that tournament is Gerry Dobson yelling “HASTINGS!!!” so it is obviously clouding my memory of events.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the knockout rounds in 2000 we played in front of 18,000 fans against Mexico, 2,800 against T&T, and 7,000 against Colombia. This is why I hate the argument that the Gold Cup is always played in the USA because of attendance. It took them a long time to get the kind of following that they have there. It sucks that USA gets infinite patience while no other countries really get a chance (aside from the occasional one off games).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kent said:

In the knockout rounds in 2000 we played in front of 18,000 fans against Mexico, 2,800 against T&T, and 7,000 against Colombia. This is why I hate the argument that the Gold Cup is always played in the USA because of attendance. It took them a long time to get the kind of following that they have there. It sucks that USA gets infinite patience while no other countries really get a chance (aside from the occasional one off games).

Alternatively they forget the whole concept of a "host".  Just let one of the teams play at home each game.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kent said:

In the knockout rounds in 2000 we played in front of 18,000 fans against Mexico, 2,800 against T&T, and 7,000 against Colombia. This is why I hate the argument that the Gold Cup is always played in the USA because of attendance. It took them a long time to get the kind of following that they have there. It sucks that USA gets infinite patience while no other countries really get a chance (aside from the occasional one off games).

I think this is in the back of Vic's mind and they know they have to find a way to make it happen.

Fact is, for a Gold Cup with 16 teams, say four groups, at least 5-6 countries have the stadiums to handle it. Canada could host. Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras. Or you could do co-hosts, even Euros were once Austria-Switzerland. 

For the US, playing at home in a confederation championship, but where for FIFA rankings it is like they are on neutral ground, is a huge advantage. Just look at their WC qualifying results away from home. They play every two years for maximum FIFA points at home, everyone else away, but the venue is considered neutral. BS. And don't tell me that Mexico gets good crowds in LA--Mexico results in Mexico are far better than in the US in front of expats.

If the US had the GC only one of three times (like Canada with the world hockey, for example), their FIFA ranking would drop by at least 10 spots and they would not be getting these artificially favourable seedings all the time.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I think this is in the back of Vic's mind and they know they have to find a way to make it happen.

Fact is, for a Gold Cup with 16 teams, say four groups, at least 5-6 countries have the stadiums to handle it. Canada could host. Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras. Or you could do co-hosts, even Euros were once Austria-Switzerland. 

For the US, playing at home in a confederation championship, but where for FIFA rankings it is like they are on neutral ground, is a huge advantage. Just look at their WC qualifying results away from home. They play every two years for maximum FIFA points at home, everyone else away, but the venue is considered neutral. BS. And don't tell me that Mexico gets good crowds in LA--Mexico results in Mexico are far better than in the US in front of expats.

If the US had the GC only one of three times (like Canada with the world hockey, for example), their FIFA ranking would drop by at least 10 spots and they would not be getting these artificially favourable seedings all the time.

Agreed! Just look at Mexico's results the 2 tournaments that they got to host their own games in Mexico.

1993
Mexico 9 Martinique 0
Mexico 1 Costa Rica 1
Mexico 8 Some northern country 0
Mexico 6 Jamaica 1
Mexico 4 USA 0

2003
Mexico 1 Brazil 0
Mexico 0 Honduras 0
Mexico 5 Jamaica 0
Mexico 2 Costa rica 0
Mexico 1 Brazil 0

That's 8 wins, 2 draws, 0 losses, with 37 goals for and 2 goals against. And notice that the 2 draws were against Central American teams. The Central American teams would likely fare a lot better against the USA (and Canada) if the entire tournament was held in Mexico (or of course in Central America). That 4-0 win against the USA in the 1993 final is the ONLY game the USA has ever played in the Gold Cup away from home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument could be made that holding the Gold Cup in the US all the time may explain why they have trouble away from home in CONCACAF.  

Perfect stadiums, no general safety or overnight noise concerns, docile crowds for the most part and playing friendlies against European teams don’t help them acclimatize to away matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

An argument could be made that holding the Gold Cup in the US all the time may explain why they have trouble away from home in CONCACAF.  

Perfect stadiums, no general safety or overnight noise concerns, docile crowds for the most part and playing friendlies against European teams don’t help them acclimatize to away matches.

The US was eliminated from the WC away to a T&T B team in Fall 2017. All they needed was a draw. It is not even the hardest of places to play in Concacaf, it is probably amongst the easier spots. That kind of fiasco they can experience easily away, they are fragile, much more so than at home. 

In that HEX, the US only won three matches, at home vs. Panama, Trinidad and Honduras. Away in 5 matches they drew Mexico (good result), Panama and Honduras, lost the rest. 12 points from 10 games. 

That very Fall T&T courts ruled against Jack Warner's appeal, who was trying to block extradition to the US to be tried for corruption, and why do I say this? Even their federation was in one of its worst moments after Warner's corrupt years as head of the Confederation, and you would not have been surprised by a reffing job biased against the locals, or some favoritism to the US. Not even that, having T&T with its tail between its legs and humilliated by its former leader was not enough to give the US an advantage.

That does not mean we should not be getting better results away ourselves, or that we should be missing a semi final in a GC, with the FIFA points that entails, by blowing a lead to Haiti.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I think this is in the back of Vic's mind and they know they have to find a way to make it happen.

Fact is, for a Gold Cup with 16 teams, say four groups, at least 5-6 countries have the stadiums to handle it. Canada could host. Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras. Or you could do co-hosts, even Euros were once Austria-Switzerland. 

For the US, playing at home in a confederation championship, but where for FIFA rankings it is like they are on neutral ground, is a huge advantage. Just look at their WC qualifying results away from home. They play every two years for maximum FIFA points at home, everyone else away, but the venue is considered neutral. BS. And don't tell me that Mexico gets good crowds in LA--Mexico results in Mexico are far better than in the US in front of expats.

If the US had the GC only one of three times (like Canada with the world hockey, for example), their FIFA ranking would drop by at least 10 spots and they would not be getting these artificially favourable seedings all the time.

Agreed with your point in general about fairness. But FIFA rankings points no longer take into account who's at home, who's away, or even goal difference. Just rank, win/loss/draw, and weighting factors for importance (friendly vs WCQ vs continental championship).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, maplebanana said:

Agreed with your point in general about fairness. But FIFA rankings points no longer take into account who's at home, who's away, or even goal difference. Just rank, win/loss/draw, and weighting factors for importance (friendly vs WCQ vs continental championship).

Really? Home or away does not matter? Had no idea.

In any case, the US gets the neutral points at home and the rest get neutral points away for GC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pottsy3 said:

I feel like if the CPL was established 15-20 years earlier, Martin Nash would've been a star in that league.

I'm not sure where you live but that's basically what he was. Was the face of Caps A league team. Wasn't underrated out here, if I recall correctly a lot of the hardcores thought he was overrated a bit by the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Really? Home or away does not matter? Had no idea.

In any case, the US gets the neutral points at home and the rest get neutral points away for GC.

Yup. Ever since they changed the way the rankings were calculated, no home/away, goal differential, or confederation weighting considerations anymore. The rankings are kind of messed up. If San Marino goes to Wembley and beats England 5-0 in WCQ, they would get 24.2 pts which would take their ranking from #210 (dead last) to #207, solidly behind Turks and Caicos at #206. If they win the home leg again against England 10-0 (or 1-0), they would vault all the way to #204. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...