We were discussing this on the Jamaica Post game thread but this is such an important part of our team and something I consider to be vastly overated that it's analisis deserves a new thread. Many people here believe that we have a huge advantage over our opponents in that our home games at Azteca give us a much better competetive advantage than most teams have in their respective stadiums. I compeltely disagree and my point is that there is no significant statistical difference between the home advantage that we have at Azteca and the home advantage that other top tier Concacaf teams have in their home games. I think the best way to go about this is to study Hex results, since we can compare Mexico's results to results from other team's who play exactly the same opponents. The following are the most points scored at home by the top 3 teams, out of a possible 45 points, in the last 3 hex cycles (2002, 2006 and 2010): MEXICO 42 USA 40 COSTA RICA 37 This is especially damning considering the US plays their qualifiers all over the country with a much bigger percentage of opposing crowd attandance than anywhere else in Concacaf. In the last 3 hex cycles, we have achieved a whooping 2 points more than the gringos do playing at home and 5 more than a costa rican team that missed the WC in 2010. The stadium retroactively got its fame due to the fact that there was a huge gap between Mexico and the rest of Concacaf and almost all Mexican players were in the domestic league (and many were playing in Mexico City). Now we have players who play in other parts of the world, at sea level, who are also going to be affected by the altitude, but I would always take talent, over home field advantage.
You should have put this in another thread instead the wasteland that is the News and Analysis thread. For all the numbers you should put 1. Since 1 is the number of losses we have had in the Azteca in official games. That includes World Cup, Confederations cups, Gold Cups and the qualifiers. You can bet your ass that the US doesn't have that record in their home country even with no official home stadium. Also you totally miss the point in your wording. You totally ignore the fact that 42 out of 45 is a 94% success rate. The last 2 hex we had 100% success rate. What else could Mexico have done to improve on that regardless of what the other teams did? They only lost that game which is the only loss they ever had. It's an impressive record any way you look at it.
When trying to isolate the home field advantage, I wanted to control for most other variables including opponents and skill. The problem with including all those tournaments and going back as far as 1986 is that 1) the opponents between comparison teams are very different 2) most of the games we played at Azteca going so far back were against terrible teams since there was a huge difference between our level of talent and our opponents´. You are right, we could even explain the 3 points lost as some kind of fluke and say that for all intents and purposes we are perfect at Azteca. The problem is that the same analisis can be made for the US. Martin cited in his column that there is a correlation between home field advantage and attendance. Based on this, we can make the conclusion that the US does not have a very good home field advantage since at most they get 20k fan attendance in small stadiums, when they play at home. I think we can make the conclusion that, in concacaf, US and Mexico are comparable teams. So if the home field advantage that we have at Azteca can be almost prefectly replicated by a team that has a mediocre home field advantage, then the advantage that we get from playing at Azteca is nothing special. Our failure to completely dominate at Azteca in the last 13 years, like we used to in the past, has more to do with 1) teams getting to a point where they at least have the athletic prowess to defend successfully and 2) having players in Europe that play at sea level and are at the same disadvantage as the opponent.
What are you talking about terrible teams? Like I said , Mexico has lost 1 official game in Azteca. We have had world cups, confederations cup, etc. Teams like England, Germany, Italy and Spain. It's better teams than we face in the hex and yet we only lost once. Your argument about the US totally falters because they are the ones who have a great record on the hex but not in other competitions. Thus all you say about having a great record because they face worse teams, applies to the US more and yet you are totally ignoring that to imply that Mexico's home field advantage isn't that strong. Once again what has Mexico have done to show they have decreased in the last 13 years? Lose the one game and win every other game?
You are compeltely misunderstanding my point. I have never stated that Mexico´s home field advantage has decreased at all, far from it, I think the home advantage has remained the same but that there are other factors at play now, that were not there before, that contribute to the decrease in results and have nothing to do with Azteca itself. But let me answer your question first. Between 1991 and 2001, Mexico averaged 3.4 goals a game at Azteca. Between 2001 and 2011, Mexico averaged 1.9 goals per game at Azteca, a 45% decrease in productivity. Still 1.9 goals a game is still a good enough number to beat mediocre teams on a regular basis but lose and tie a game once in a while (which is what has happened). This is something you compeltely lose sight of when just focusing on wins and loses. So yes, Mexico´s results have decreased in the last decade at Azteca. This decrease has nothing to do with losing Azteca´s extreme home advantage but it has more to do with the fact that 95% of our games are played against teams that are terrible. Between 1991 and 2001 our biggest wins (in terms of caliber of opponent) were against Brazil (on 2 different occasions), Paraguay and Ecuador. Between 2001 and 20011 we beat Brazil (again, twice), Chile and the US. Besides the Brazil results (which we get now even on neutral ground) it is not that spectacular of a list. The result comparison vs. the US was to show that against the exact same opponents our almost perfect home record is equaled by another team that has very little home advantage, therefore, you can´t really attribute the ¨almost perfect record¨ to Azteca itself and it has more to do with the quality of opponent we face on a regular basis. You can go back to the 80s all you want but you have to realize that the farther back you go the bigger difference that you have in other variables. For example, almost every single player in the 80s played their club football in Mexico and a lot of them in Mexico City, so they had a much bigger advantage playing at altitude than the opponents you mentioned that traveled in from overseas. In the next 10 years, as more Mexican players go abroad and Concacaf teams are now made up of athletes who can at least defend, Mexico will suffer more losses at Azteca, its inevitable. People will blame this on the players or coaching, but this has more to do with the real reason why we had such a big advantage to begin with in the past.
[good poster]I love the strong mathematics being exhibited in this thread ......42/45 = 93%.....ugh dumb spazzos[/good poster]
You're picking and choosing. You can go on and say that the US equals Mexico record in home field as evidence that home field isn't great and it's the quality and then exclude the fact that Mexico's record outside the hex is pretty great and a lot better than the US outside of it. Thus that proves that it's a greater homefield advantage if it works with teams outside the hex. You also claim that if you go to the 80's then there are factors of teams playing in Mexico but forget to include the fact that Mexico's team and league were a inferior at that time. Thus that even shows a bigger homefield advantage that an inferior Mexico got results against better teams. That similar to the way that Bolivia's homefield advantage is clear as the team can't get the results they get outside of La Paz.
Of course I am picking and choosing. I am picking and choosing results that control for other variables. And you are right, the fact that the Mexican league was inferior at the time was another variable at play, some variables are going to help the results and others will hurt it, the problem is that this noise affects any type of statistical analisis because it is very hard to quantify the effect that these variables have (positive or negative) in order to isolate the effect that the home field advantage has. But ill do as you say, I will take ALL the home games the US has played between 2001-2011 and compare them to ALL the Azteca games Mexico has played in the same period and figure out the average goal differential that each team has in those games. MEXICO: + 1.4 USA: + 1.3 In other words, Mexico has an average goal differential of + 1.4 goals in games played at Azteca and the US has an average goal differential of + 1.3 goals played at home. So, on average, we score + 0.1 more goals at Azteca than the US team, who most people consider does not have a significant home field advantage. Once again, the home field advantage that we have at Azteca, is nothing special.
Mexico since 2000 has lost 3 games in the Azteca (and it's considered a bad record as they lost 1 game in the previous 2 decades). The US off the top of my game lost 5 times in 2001 alone (Panama, Mexico, Spain, Costa Rica and Paraguay) at home. Their Hex record is infinite superior because they face crappier rivals. And you say Mexico gets benefited by that but the US plays a lot of crappier rivals than Mexico by your standard (Grenada, Central American b teams prior to the world cup, Canada) and yet your using the same standards to discard Mexico's advantage to somehow boost the US home record. Don't get it.
You keep clinging on to the wins/losses even if they paint an inaccurate picture of home field advantage, but you can keep at it if it make you feel better. We face the exact same opponents in the Hex. I realize that many people here are absolutely butthurt whenever there is a comparison to the US, so lets take another route. The European team that is closest down the line to Mexico in the latest Fifa Rankings is Sweeden. Sweeden plays most of their home games in Solna, a city that is 24 meters above sea level, in a stadium with a maximum capacity of 50,000. So what is Sweeden's average goal differential between 2001 and 2001? + 1.4, same as Mexico at Azteca Whats next, Sweeden plays worse competition than Mexico?
The way you keep pointing to goal differential to benefit your argument. Of course losses don't mean stuff because it shits on your theory of the US having the same home field advantage as Mexico. Once again, if we face the opponents in the hex, why does that mean Mexico doesn't have an advantage when it had almost perfection in the hex? And then when it's other rivals that are brought up that prove the US record isn't the same, you discard it.Spare me. And what does Solna have to do with Mexico. How do you discard that it doesn't have a homefield advantage? Those the fact it's not in altitude discards and advantage? Does that mean that Quito and La Paz must not have an advantage because Solna isn't in altitude? By the way Solna is part of Stockholm's metropolitan area.
Because the perfection cannot be directly attributed to home field advantage. What you are claiming is the equivalent of you saying you have a significant home field advantage when playing basketball at your place with a bunch of 10 year olds, "well damn, i am undefeated at home, therefore I must have a great homefield advantage". Then, when playing 15 year olds, you are still undefeated , even if you are winning by a much smaller margin, but regardless, you look at your undefeated record and come to the same conclusion. This is what has happened to Mexico, in the 90s they were twice as dominant in Azteca than in the 00s, and Azteca has remained at the same altitude, smog and seat capacity. What has changed is the level the opponent, so the drastic home advantage that is attributed with the stadium has more to do with the level of opponents that the team is facing. Sigh... i have never said this or even implied it, i have repeated my position 5 times but I will do it again and put it in caps: MEXICO, LIKE SWEEDEN, THE US AND JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER COUNTRY , HAS A HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE AT AZTECA. BUT, MEXICO'S ADVANTAGE AT AZTECA IS STATISTICALY COMPARABLE TO THE ADVANTAGE THAT SWEEDEN, THE US AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES SHARE. Once again, I have never claimed that Sweeden has no home field advantage, they obviously have one. My point is the following (again): The claim, " Mexico's has a much bigger homefield advantage playing at Azteca than most top 30 FR teams have at home" is false. The claim " Mexico's home advantage is comparable to the home advantage most top 30 FR teams have at home", is more likely to be true. To put it to you in more realistic terms: Statistically, Mexico should have the same homefield advantage playing at Azteca as they should have anywhere else in Mexico. Most people would not agree with this statement.
But that is what YOU are doing with the US. You're arguing that the US has a similar homefield advantage all thru the US because they have a similar record in the hex, but totally exclude the fact that it's totally different when facing other teams and competitions. Thus you are the one implying the thing about the 15 years and 10 years with the US team. Of course losses cannot be attributed directly because they prove the impressive home record that Mexico has in the Azteca throughout all competitions. It's better to imply just the hex and then divide the difference thru points without acknowledging that in many cases it's impossible to improve. I don't know about Sweden but it's definitely not comparable to the US. 1 official loss in it's history isn't anywhere close to whatever the US has. It's false if you bend over backwards to fail to recognize how wins and losses are the prime object of measuring success in football. And also Mexico City's altitude is the reason it's deemed as a bigger advantage than other locations in Mexico unless you want to make as if the altitude effect is also a myth. Which then how do you explain Quito and La Paz? By the way, you should ask the mods to move this thread, it's pretty much a PM discussion now.
No, i have not excluded that fact. If you read back you will see that I compared the average goal differential for both teams in ALL competitions. In all competitions at Azteca, Mexico has an average goal diff of +1.4 and the US has an avarage goal diff of + 1.3 in all games at home. These stats are NOT just the Hex Based on the example I gave before, do you really think you can conclude that you are as dominant when playing 15 year olds are you were playing 10 year olds, after all, wins measure success? Your reasoning is the prime reason for the misconception. It is not a myth at all, and I think this is the reason we had a much bigger homefield advantage in the past (along with average team quality) than now. Before, a huge chunk of the team was used to playing at altitude and did not have to travel overseas to get here. Now we have our best players playing at sea level and they only have 48 hours to get used to playing at 7,000 feet. Statistically Mexico should have the same advantage playing anywhere else in Mexico as they do in Azteca, and I think this is true primarily because we don't benefit as much anymore from the altitude.
Once again you keep on with GF as the deciding fact and not win and losses. That the way you equate it to your benefit. The US actually had a LOSING record at home in 2011 and yet you try to say because of goal diff it's an equal home record to a team that losses once 3 games in 30 years (only one official). You are the one who criticizes the thinking when it's Mexico but that is your base in the argument for the US. Well against Jamaica the worst player and one of the worse (Aguilar and Maza) both play in Azteca as their homefield. And you fail to take away that some players in Mexico are affected but outside Bolivia and Ecuador, it supposed to be that all of the rival players are supposed to be affected.
I can't make you think logically, so there is really not much else I can say. What you are telling me is that there is no difference in beating 10 teams by an average of 5 goals or beating those same 10 teams by an average of 1 goal. In your thinking, you are as dominant beating a 10 year old at basketball by 10 points as you are beating a 15 year old by 2 points. For you, those two scenarios are equal, because they all end up in wins, regardless of the domination. For me, and most other people, those two scenarios are not the same. So feel free to respond if you have anything new to add, however, there is no need to follow this same line of conversation. Saying that you have no experience with any type of statistical analisis in an understatement (and there is nothing wrong with that). Btw, don't read or watch Moneyball, you would hate it.
But YOU are the one making that argument. By going on and concentrating just on the hex and the rivals, you are trying to imply that the US has the same homefield advantage that Mexico, but when it goes to other competition, it totally destroys that argument since the US has nowhere near the record Mexico does. Of course you totally discount winning percentage and validate it all on goal differential which is bullshit because goal differential totally distorts the view by scoring up on minnows like Grenada or Barbados like the US has by equating all of it (as opposed to Mexico who has been play the minnows in places like Aguascalientes or Monterrey). And I haven't seen Moneyball nor am interested in seeing the story of a once great team who is getting announced as the second coming for winning jackshit. Maybe they will make Moneyball 2 about the Van Schip Chivas team.