Another score for FIFA. Copa América '07 in danger.

[El Diablo Rojo]

I forgot to mention, but for a team to be the home side at the altitude isn't a warranty of anything not like Bolivia qualified to many world cups, in fact they finished last in the last WCQ, also Ecuador didn't suddenly start to play in the altitude.

 

[AxelFoley]

I forgot to mention, but for a team to be the home side at the altitude isn't a warranty of anything not like Bolivia qualified to many world cups, in fact they finished last in the last WCQ, also Ecuador didn't suddenly start to play in the altitude.

I think you have to have a decent team in order to take that advantage. Ecuador has progressed from being a poor futbol country to a decent team, they have good players etc, but if you take away that stadium for them I don't see them making it to the world cup anytime soon.

Bolivia on the other hand does not have such a good team and therefore the altitude doesn't help them too much.

 

[Harmsworth1]

I think you have to have a decent team in order to take that advantage. Ecuador has progressed from being a poor futbol country to a decent team, they have good players etc, but if you take away that stadium for them I don't see them making it to the world cup anytime soon.

Bolivia on the other hand does not have such a good team and therefore the altitude doesn't help them too much.

It could be... However the human body quickly adapts. Any team can take advantage of the situation if it trains at high altidudes for a month or so before the crucial matches...

 

[Ruben Sosa]

I forgot to mention, but for a team to be the home side at the altitude isn't a warranty of anything

No, there's no guarantee, but playing at high altitudes generates an undeniable unsporting advantage against certain teams that goes beyond simply being the home side. Otherwise other nations wouldn’t be considering changing their venues to higher altitudes and there wouldn't be such a buzz over this ban.

not like Bolivia qualified to many world cups, in fact they finished last in the last WCQ, also Ecuador didn't suddenly start to play in the altitude.

The few successes by both nations in Copa Americas and WCQ’s happen to coincide with them playing at La Paz and Quito.

Ecuador began playing in Quito in the 70’s and alternated back and forth between it and Guayaquil until the mid 90’s, where they switched completely to Quito.

Prior to the change of venue: Zilch.

After: Semifinalists in the 1993 Copa America (played in Ecuador, of course, with all their games in Quito) and qualified 2 out of 3 times for the World Cup.

Bolivia has a similar record in Copa America's, their only good performances have been at home, though at least they started playing in La Paz from the beginning, they didn't switch after realizing it posed an advantage.

It could be... However the human body quickly adapts. Any team can take advantage of the situation if it trains at high altidudes for a month or so before the crucial matches...

Heh. I've heard that one before.

Uruguay did it prior to the 2002 WCQ match at La Paz. We had a 24 day "acclimatization". The result was a draw, 0-0. Though initially received as a good result, in time everyone started criticizing the performance, and the whole thing was deemed a waste of time and money. Now our "strategy" for playing there is to arrive at La Paz only a couple of hours before the game.

Here are the statistics for that match:

Bolivia
Throw-Ins: 21
Corners: 7
Fouls: 19
Shots on Target: 9
Shots off Target: 11
Offsides: 2

Uruguay
Throw-Ins: 12
Corners: 2
Fouls: 16
Shots on Target: 0
Shots off Target: 4
Offsides: 0

 

[Parra Power]

if it trains at high altidudes for a month or so

You DO see the issue with that???????????????

 

[El Diablo Rojo]

No, there's no guarantee, but playing at high altitudes generates an undeniable unsporting advantage against certain teams that goes beyond simply being the home side.

But then again would be the same taking Brazil to play against Russia in Moscow too.


P.S.: That's an example people, don't think i have anything against Moscow.

 

[Mauricio]

I think is unfair, if FIFA really cares about the health of players well, they should ban games in places where the temperature is above 39 C, i mean i think is more dangerous playing in a very hot place than in altitude, in fact i havent seen any incidents in games in altittude (i live in Toluca 2600m), but i have had seen a lot of dangerous incident at very hot enviroments.

 

[Ruben Sosa]

But then again would be the same taking Brazil to play against Russia in Moscow too.

I fail to see how that is comparable in the least.

To begin with, most of the Brazilian NT plays in Europe where the winters get to be as cold as anywhere else. They're probably quite used to freezing temperatures. Not to mention that the Luzhniki Stadium has under-soil heating.

Finally, Brazil, or any other South American national team for that matter, will not be playing Russia in Moscow for anything more important than a friendly.

Really, that argument is clinging at straws.

 

[Kibe Kru]

Weather is something you can't control, really. Sure, it can reach 40ºC easily in Rio, but you can't know in a good advance what the temperature will be. We'd all love to avoid extreme conditions, but sometimes we can't do a thing about it. Sometimes we can.

 

[Bobby]

There goes USA's plan to play Costa Rica in Leadville, ****. We'll end up playing infront of 65,000 ticos in Houston now.

 

[Spider-Man84]

Peruvian President Alan Garcia made a good statement the other day....

He said something along the lines that this RULING is European Biased. Why can't our team's have their advantages just like they have theres. If that is the case then they might as well ban games in Africa because it is TOO hot. People have died from the heat.

Good points. They can't take away the altitude...

 

[Kibe Kru]

I don't think it's European biased. Just look at who's complaining... Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador... hardly nations that host matches against European sides that often.

 

[Biebrich 02]

that's part of what makes internatonal games interesting. hot countries, cold countries, countries with altitude etc.

Of course it's not fair but is it fair that a country with a population of 25,000 (san marino) has to play against a country with a pop. of 80,000,000 (germany)? In a stadium with 45,000 people? No. that's part of the game.

 

[Harmsworth1]

that's part of what makes internatonal games interesting. hot countries, cold countries, countries with altitude etc.

Of course it's not fair but is it fair that a country with a population of 25,000 (san marino) has to play against a country with a pop. of 80,000,000 (germany)? In a stadium with 45,000 people? No. that's part of the game.

I think i agree...

 

[Gene Reginato]

I think i agree...

If a place is too hot, like Rio, for instance, the game is usually played at night (the exception was the USA WC, when they were stupid enough to schedule the games to 12a.m). In high altitudes, we have several cases of players, reporters and coaches, passing out BEFORE the game starts.

 

[El Diablo Rojo]

that's part of what makes internatonal games interesting. hot countries, cold countries, countries with altitude etc.

Exactñy, that's why i think having it against altitude only is lame, they shouldn't forbid anything at all.

Apparently Colombia lowered the threat a bit, they'd take part in the Copa América but not in the WCQ, which as a protest may not have the same effect because it would be a diaster for the organization if they don't play in the Copa América, but with the current system for the WCQ is may not matter for the CONMEBOL at all.

 

[Biebrich 02]

Apparently Colombia lowered the threat a bit, they'd take part in the Copa América but not in the WCQ.

it's hard to believe they really would voluntarily miss a world cup (colombia's chances to qualify aren't that bad). But it'd be a funny situation, if peru, ecuador, colombia and bolivia all don't enter the wcq. conmebol would only play for one single team to miss the world cup :funny:

 

[Mauricio]

I don't think it's European biased. Just look at who's complaining... Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador... hardly nations that host matches against European sides that often.

Maybe not European biased, but still biased, cuz look who are complaining Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, powerfull nations with good influence over FIFA, i bet if it was the other way around Blatter wouldnt even care.

Like if those nations really needed help, at least ARgentina and Braizl will qualify easly.

 

[Kibe Kru]

Yes, it's biased. Definitely not European biased though.

Also, I don't think it has to do with the S. Am. qualifiers to the World Cup, but more about the Libertadores.

 

[AxelFoley]

Who runs the show in Colombia, a monkey? Who is that stupid that they will go to Copa but won't play in the qualifiers?

But hey, if they won't play in the WCQ, things are looking much better for Uruguay.