Bill Archer had a blog post a while ago that basically said that the USSF offered to move the game against Mexico to a non-Columbus location IF the FMF was willing to move their home game against us away from Azteca. Mexico balked. Columbus is in their heads. Their team fears Crew Stadium. That's a good thing. Let's not mess with a good thing.
My thoughts... I just don't agree with the notion of why mess with a good thing. Yes, they haven't beaten us in CLB yet, but there's no doubt that there are better places to play the game in terms of pro-US atmoshpere. That's what the key is. We've won in CLB because it was the first place where we could get a pro-US crowd. Now there are more places to do that and places that are even better. Let's not have the attitude of let's play this match in CLB until we lose it. Let's have the attitude of let's play the match in the most hostile environment for Mexico to ensure that we NEVER lose. Also, I'm being devil's advocate here, but isn't field turf a good thing vs Mexico? Yeah, I think every match should be on grass, but if we're really trying to get an advantage, don't you think playing Mexico on turf will help us. There's no denying that they're better than us technically, but we have an edge physically. I think playing on turf would help with that. Again, I'm not saying we should play it on turf, but I am merely suggesting that it may help us win. I vote for Portland. We should do it just to see the tifo that TA/US supporters come up with.
Crew Stadium is a PROVEN psychological advantage. US Soccer told Mexico they would consider moving the game out of Columbus, if Mexico would consider withdrawing from Azteca. When you say "Now there are more places do that and places that are even better." what exactly do you mean? There's no doubt that by comparison to some SSS built in the last 5 years, Crew Stadium is an erector set sh!t hole of a stadium. The locker rooms are small, there is no roof, and it's fugly to look at. But that's part of the psychological advantage. Mexico has brought three technically superior teams in here in each of the last three WC Cycles and went up 2-0 losers each time. Why would you/anyone risk that mojo? And wouldn't it stand to reason that switching to turf would benefit the more technically skilled team (i.e. Mejico) than the lesser technically skilled team (i.e. Estados Unidos)? Also, keep in mind that one of the big reasons that the game got to Columbus in 2001 at all was partially due to a February game date. US Soccer wanted the Pro-US crowd and a COLD environment. I would like to think that the fact that US-Jamaica is a near sellout at this point is a plus for Crew Stadium. However, I think the big key will probably be WHEN the game is scheduled for. If it's February/March, then you can almost bet on Columbus.
Agreed on the timing. If it's during winter, Portland weather will be more mild. My main point is I don't buy into concepts like "mojo". CLB is a psychological advantage because it's been the only place thus far where Mexico donesn't feel like it's the home team. If there's a place that can accomplish that better than CLB does, then let's play the game there. Yeah we offered to move the game from CLB if the Mexicans would it from Azteca, but that says more about Azteca than it does about CLB. I really want to see this game in Portland because I really want to see an awsome pro-US crowd. I've been to CLB the last 3 times. It's been watered down the last two times. The first time felt like Woodstock for a US Soccer fan. It was unbelievable to feel like the home team. The next two were great, but the Mexican support increased each time. Mexican fans expect it to be there. They know how to game the system to get tickets. I'm going to do my damndest to make the game wherever it is, but I really think PDX would be the best.
I agree with USAclash. If there is a stadium with a better season ticket base and can produce a better pro-usa atmosphere then the game should be played there. Columbus may have the psychological edge now but it is losing its luster a bit. Every cycle there seems to be more and more green jerseys in the stands. KC, Portland and even Chester, PA should be considered.
Considering that 12,000 tickets were sold in the US/Jamaica presale for Crew Stadium (the last time US and Jamaica played a WCQ in Crew Stadium, they didn't even break the 10K mark in total, let alone presales), and that they just had to add temporary bleachers for the Jamaica game due to high demand (just announced a few minutes ago), its logical to assume that presales for the next US/Mexico game will be way up too. I expect a much higher percentage of US fans for the next US Mexico game at Crew Stadium, and I wouldn't be surprised if they sold all 20K seats in the presale. Moving it from Columbus would be a terrible decision.
Well, Kudos to Columbus for doing a fantastic job selling tickets for the Jamaica match. I am not 100% sure it translates to the Mexico match though but we shall see.
Lets be real here. Chester PA has had trouble selling the US every time its been there and the area is complete crap. Portland is on plastic and while its unreal atmosphere for timbers games I have seen no evidence that USA would sell there(I could be wrong bc i do not live there)...Hell they had a hard time Getting an American Outlaws chapter started. KC would not be bad and it showed during last summers gold cup. Columbus is a clear and obvious choice and is proven. If Jamacia can sell out that fast with mostly US supporters buying tickets it will be the same for Mexico.
Here is two good reads from Steve Davis on the US in Columbus. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=603192&sec=us&root=us&cc=5901 2008 http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/...-choice-of-sept-11-world-cup-qualifier-venue/ 2012
1) Chester has had only one friendly against Colombia from what I remember. Columbus had a friendly against Ecuador that was sparsely attended too... ...so I don't get your logic here. We all know a World CUP QUALIFIER against Mexico is a different animal and creates a different Buzz. They have a larger season ticket base for ticket control and the atmosphere has been better. (Look at the All-Star game compared to MLS cups in Columbus.) 2) Yes the Carpet issue is bad for Portland. But that can be resolved in a year with temporary grass. Or it can be used as an advantage since I don't think Mexican players prefer the fake stuff either. 3) KC seems to be the most logical place to take over. And if the match against Guatemala is a success Columbus won't be the slam dunk it once was anymore.
The Ecuador game was in 2001....Really?? US soccer was no where near as popular then as it is now, not even close. Just saying Phily has not shown me anything to deserve a match of that magnitude and I am confident that there will not be any WCQ's there at all this cycle. I would like to see Portland get a WCQ but not Mexcio. I agree that KC could easily host the Mexico game and other qualifers soon. I would definitly travel to see that.
Point is the opponent is a major factor when it comes to what type of crowd shows up. I think a Mexico match would be a sure Sellout and if the ticket sales strategies are applied correctly... ...they would have a better Pro-USA crowd in the stands which is priority in my book.
I have no doubt Columbus would give us a good crowd for the Mexico match. In 2001 and 2005, Columbus was the only place where we could really expect this. In 2009, maybe Rio Tinto could've provided a better atmosphere. In 2013, few believe CLB could provide a better atmosphere than Portland or KC for this match. I can see the sentimentality of having it in CLB. Hell, if we end up losing ever, we can bring the Mexico qualifer back to CLB in the future, and everyone will get all fired up about going back to where we've never lost to them. But, I don't think we should wait to until we lose to move it. We should play this match wherever we can have the best pro-US crowd, period. I don't think it's Columbus anymore.
Say what you will but Columbus has proved time and time again that it does have a pro-US crowd. You simply cant be sure that another stadium will be pro-US because you have never seen it there. AS for the atmosphere I have been to US games allover the country and Columbus is no question up there with the best of them so i dont get how you can say it would be better somewhere else. Lets not forget that the Jamaica game sold out in its presale stages and additional seating had to be installed....Not saying it would not be great in another city but to say it should be moved just because, is not good enough for me when you have proven results in Columbus.
I don't think anyone is saying that it should be moved because the support isn't there. It should just be one of situations where someone else should get the opportunity to host the game as well. Like you said we wont know what the crowd will be like unless they (new place) get the game. Just like we didn't know what the crowd would be like in Columbus until they got the game.
Columbus has become a tradition for the US National Team, but there are other places that can host the game. I'm thinking Kansas City, Portland, and Seattle will work well too.
*Columbus locality blinders off* I shudder to think, but for the sake of it's marketing reasons (Nike) I can see Portland getting matches. K.C. I would venture to guess would get the Mexico match at some point. For the sake of spreading the wealth especially considering the travel of fans from west to east most of the time, it does do some good to have matches in center to west coast stadia. Just remember, Mexico could "travel well" in certain parts of the country.
If you hear Steven Goff (@soccerinsider), the DC beatwriter talk, he makes it sound like there is no way in hell US Soccer EVER plays a WCQ on turf. I could see friendlies up there. Or, I could see Nike paying to have the field re-sod. But until the field is not fake, then I don't see it happening.
It kinda blows that two of our best soccer fan bases in MLS have turf up there in the Pacific North West. They deserve to host a Qualifier.
Yes and yes The other thing to keep in mind, Columbus is within a reasonable drive of multiple major urban areas, Chicago, Indy, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincy, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Louisville have a combined population of what? Random guess : 15 million? Seattle is an easy 3 hour drive from Portland but that is it. Boise is tiny by urban standards and not even close. Spokane has maybe a million people. San Francisco and Salt Lake are way too far. Not saying the PAC northwest doesn't deserve a game sometime but that's a factor.
147.5 million people (about 48% of the US population) live within 500 miles of Columbus. http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../04/columbus-in-plum-location-study-says.html