Maybe in the section you were in it felt pro USA. In many other sections it felt like a road match. As for the USA being the second most popular national team... ... I say maybe second most popular CONCACAF team. There are many teams in Europe and South America that are more popular.
Here is something to consider, I think this Hex is the toughest I've seen since I've been following qualification (1988-89). Heck, what many would perceive as the weakest team in there (Jamaica) has recently beat us at home. Panama beat us at the Gold Cup (in the USA), and we all know Mexico, Honduras, and Costa Rica are awfully tough places to play. I don't think USSF can afford a money grab game this time. Play the games where we can get a good home-field advantage. Columbus, KC, Rio Tinto, wherever. If you need a money grab game, schedule the Mexico/Brazil/Argentina game at Cowboy stadium for a friendly.
I know some have suggested Honduras in Kansas City, but San Pedro Sula has a much lower elevation than San Jose. Let's bring Honduras up to Salt Lake.
And we have had a good history against Costa rica in your neck of the woods. I know it was the other Kansas city but who cares.
SLC and Denver only make sense if the players (mostly Euro-based) are released in time so that they can spend sufficient time at altitude to acclimate themselves. Otherwise, we are hurting ourselves more than our opponents.
First of all it takes weeks for football players to get acclimated to higher altitudes. Second of all the altitude did not hurt us at all when we faced Costa Rica in Utah and Guatemala in Colorado in years past.
Bingo. Which is why it unlikely to happen as Honduras has more players who are at least used to some altitude and can get more of their players together at altitude for a longer time than the US can. Just a bad idea, unless you live in Denver or SLC. [quote="Clenbuterol, post: 26629678, member: 193419" Second of all the altitude did not hurt us at all when we faced Costa Rica in Utah and Guatemala in Colorado in years past. [/quote] I don't recall these games. Were they qualifiers? I expect most matches to be at sea level and on the East Coast as that is best for the majority of our key players who play in Europe.
Most teams in the hex have players in Europe and they all leave their clubs at about the same time to prepare for National Team matches. There is no advantage or disadvantage either way. As for those games , yes they were World Cup Qualifying matches. One in 2o05 and the other in 2008. The altitude was not a problem for us at all and should not be an issue. In fact... ... in 2009 we played a WCQ in Utah. You probably forgot that one too.
Not nearly as many as us - even Mexico. So, It is a bigger disadvantage for us; and Even if it wasn't, why would we want to level the playing field against anybody other than Mexico. We want the best conditions for our players because they are superior to most of our competitors in the Hex. I do not have an encyclopedia like memory of USMNT game sites. Sorry. Thanks for the information. Regardless of what we did in the past it was a mistake to play at altitude. It is a mistake that hasn't been repeated since the first round of qualifying in the last cycle and I don't expect it to be repeated. The reasons why are: It is in the interest of the USMNT to minimize wear and tear on it's many Euro-based players. The less wear and tear and the less game time they miss because they return late to their clubs, the better for the USMNT. Since the proportion of Europe-based players is higher for the USMNT than all or most of our opponents, this means that our opponents are more likely to be able to get a higher percentage of their roster released early to allow them sufficient time to acclimatize to altitude. It would create a disadvantage. A number of our opponents have their capital city at altitude, meaning they likely will have more players who are based at altitude than the USMNT will have. We have more talent than most of our opponents. As a result, we want the conditions to be normal and uncomplicated, allowing our talent to win out.
It was not a mistake at all. We played in Utah in the last Hex and won. As long as we can get a good crowd cheering on the USA... ... playing at altitude should not hurt us. It can benefit us slightly if we play Jamaica, Honduras or Costa Rica as long as the tickets are distributed to MLS supporters first and foremost. There is a recent history of that and it should continue this Hex. Either Utah or Colorado or both should get a match in my opinion and I think the Federation will agree with that assessment.
Then whats the real point in playing in SLC. I assume it doesn't have many Hondurans in or around that area.
The main point I have emphasized is to use MLS stadiums with good MLS fan bases. The Altitude can slightly come into play but it is not the main factor.
I would love for Portland or Seattle to host a match. Problem is they have artificial turf which apparently the Federation along with the managers don't ever want to play on.
We win games in lots of places, it doesn't mean the sites are the best choices. The main reason we beat El Salvador was that the USMNT was better than El Salvador, which only won two out of ten games in the Hex. We have beaten them in San Salvador before - should we play them there? As I stated before, it can hurt the USMNT because most of our opponents will be able to put out a roster that will have more altitude-acclimated players. It also hurts our players through unnecessary wear and tear and what's bad for our players is bad for the USMNT. Why will benefit us against those teams? Honduras and CR have a lot of big clubs that play at some altitude and they have less Euro-based players. It would undoubtedly favor those sides to play them at altitude. So your argument is that it is traditional? Who knows what the USSF will do or what their motives will be. If the focus is on qualifying, it will be a mistake. We can get pro-US fans at other sites. Artificial turf is no problem as it, unlike altitude, can be temporarily replaced. Where to you live, BTW?
It has not hurt us before. It should not hurt us again. Salt Lake can be a nice site to play as long as the Season ticket holders get first dibs on tickets. Colorado could be a nice place to play Jamaica. I don't agree with your assessment that the altitude can hurt us. If we lose it is because the other teams out-played us or the other teams out-coached us.
Name me the key starting players on the Honduras and Costa Rican rosters that play at high altitude on a consistent basis.
Really? You don't think it is likely that as both capital cities are at altitude, that it is likely that those teams have some players from sides to the capital? Is the concept really that hard to grasp? Ok, Costa Rica -> Alvaro Saborio, Randall Brenes are two of the five scorers in CR's last match. Both play for clubs at altitude. That's enough research on my side until you answer where you live and, if the answer is not Utah or Colorado, where you grew up.