The field was bad yes, but both teams had to play on it. I don't want to use it as an excuse for our lack of urgency and poor performance.
While this is true, a bad field usually helps even out teams that have a talent gap, bringing the more talented team down.
Ugly fields are ugly. Ugly fields aren't unheard of, however, even at FIFA: Semifinal WC 1974 A&B's population wouldn't fill a big football stadium. Do you expect them to have a pro stadium with a perfect field? Pay for it, buy them their stadium. Some users on this board like to make fun of European qualifying against tiny countries like San Marino or Andorra at the group stages. However, their fields are okay; because they regularly get to play a big country every two years, sell the TV rights for their home game for a million or two, and maintain a proper field and some employees.
And as long as Warner helped keep FIFA overlooking MLS's labor arrangement that contravene's FIFA's policy then Sunil Gulati was happy to let Warner do it. Or least that is one interpretation.
I don't criticize A&B for the quality of the field. But I do question why they were allowed to line the filed smaller than the stadium could accomidate. Is FIFA's Gleneagles' 68m width requirement a real requirement? If not it means that stadiums line Stanford and Jen-Weld would be able to host WCQs in the US.
Every country is allowed to setup their field within FIFA regulations. A&B did exactly as everyone else does. Make their field decisions within the rules to maximize their chances. Really folks -- this is how the game is played everywhere. We do the same. Lets grow up as a fan base and get a little bit of maturity to match our ambitions as a soccer nation.
This makes no sense. If the surface is unplayable then that's going to affect the performance. Obviously the home team is going to be more experienced on dealing with the pitch. And the visiting players are going to moving carefully to try and avoid injury on that type of surface.
That amendment is not in the current Laws of the Game. The current Laws as downloaded a few minutes ago from fifa.com state that the minimum width of the pitch is 70 yds. It's possible that it will be a change for 2013.
I'm not at all convinced that the game Friday was on a non-regulation field. Again, USSF and FIFA officials were on hand. I have no doubt they both looked at it and concluded it adhered to current regulation.
Pitch size was a great move by A&B. Kilns knew this game was going to be a 10 behind the ball grudge match (and probably the width) as he stated thus when he picked his roster. He said as such included leaving Altidore off to bring in some better players in the air. The Strat almost got A&B 1 point. So can't blame them for implementing the best strats to try and get some points. The part that sucked was our slow ball movement in the 1st half. Quicker game and more urgency in the 1st while we had the wind advantage would have been nice. But this seems typical for the US.
The problem is the US can put that February fixture anywhere they want. There isn't a law of the game that says the game has to be played in a certain temperature. There is a law of the game that states the width.
And they followed the law. There is NO evidence to the contrary. Pictures from the side 100 yrds away don't amount to evidence. FIFA and USSF officials at the site determining that it is within the regs is evidence.
All of these measurements based on screen captures are assuming that the goal frame was regulation size.
Looks to me like they shot the game with a telephoto lens because the stands were so far from the field. This will make the field look even smaller than it actually is.
"In March 2008 the IFAB attempted to standardize the size of the football pitch for international matches and set the official dimensions of a pitch to 105 m longby 68 m wide.[5] However, at a special meeting of the IFAB on 8 May 2008, it was ruled that this change would be put on hold pending a review and the proposed change has never been implemented.[6]"
Not entirely correct. Yes, we have to assume the goal frame was regulation size, but it's not true the measurements based on the captures are solely based on this assumption.
Yeah, but if the goal frame wasn't regular size and the goal box wasn't regular size and the penalty area wasn't regular size and the distance from the corner arc to the hash wasn't 10 yds... (mind blown ) ( )