Article on the WQC draw. First game is Feb 11 against Mexico and the Bay Area is on the list of potential locations. Bradley, Gulati Address Draws Says they'll pick sites in 10 days (next week). Not sure when they'll announce.
That announcement effectively rules out North Dakota as a possible site... I'll hold my excitement until the list is at least narrowed down to single digits.
Gulati has said before that he's told the FMF that if they would agree not to play their home date at Azteca, he's willing to play our home date somewhere else than Columbus (sorry, I don't have the link handy, this statement was made a few years back). Whether that still applies or not, I'm not certain, but certainly having an actual WCQ here (whoever the opponent is) would be pretty cool. Tony
He said "depending on opponent." There is no way that USSF will schedule a US/Mex qualifier in the Bay Area unless he means Guantanamo Bay Area. I think the only opponents we would likely get around here would be T&T or Costa Rica, but I think that even those are unlikely. Of, course I never thought I would see the Earthquakes play again this decade either so who knows.
The "depending on opponent" comment specifically rules out Southern California and Texas for games against Mexico. If the Bay Area was ruled out Gulati could have easily said "California" not "Southern California". He also specifically mentions the Bay Area as a possible site for qualifiers. The USSF have very good relations with the Bay Area and with Stanford and the venue is a great size for this kind of match. Not too big, not too small.
Against Mexico, the Bay Area won't provide the "home field advantage" atmotphere , So I really don't see it happening here. Right now Columbus is the right candidate for this particular game.
Columbus is never the right candidate for anything. We can beat Mexico anywhere in the US. We don't have to play in a freezing hick town to do that. Besides it's chicken sh*t to do so. February 6, 2008 2-2 T Onyewu, Altidore Houston, Texas 70,103 February 7, 2007 2-0 W Conrad, Donovan Glendale, Ariz. 62,426 June 24, 2007 2-1 W Donovan, Feilhaber Chicago, Ill. 60,000 (SO) Sept. 3, 2005 2-0 W Ralston, Beasley Columbus, Ohio 24,685 Apr. 28, 2004 1-0 W Eddie Pope Dallas, Texas 45,048 May 8, 2003 0-0 T Reliant Stadium (Houston, Texas) 69,582 April 3, 2002 1-0 W Invesco Field at Mile High (Denver, Colo.) 48,476 February 28, 2001 2-0 W Columbus Crew Stadium (Columbus, Ohio) 24,624 June 11, 2000 3-0 W East Rutherford, N.J.45,008 Oct. 25, 2000 2-0 W Los Angeles, Calif. 61,072 Anyway the point of this thread is that Gulati, unlike most here, hasn't ruled us out. He's rule out Texas, LA and Florida. He's ruled us in.
Especially when they turn down the thermostat to 20 below zero. The US answer to Azteca. It may not be factually true, but it sends a message.
I think the only time they made that sacrifice is when they used Columbus Crew stadium in the middle of February. They wanted us to believe that the reasons were tactical ones.
well, as much as i'd love to see a qualifier here locally i'd prefer it wasn't mexico. beating them 2-0 again 1st match would be the best start, and i'd like to believe this is the cycle we beat them in mexico.
The US-Mexico wcq was played in Columbus in 2001 and in 2005 for the home field advantage even though the USSF could have made a lot more money by holding the game in the Rose Bowl.
Is it there any other reasons ? Let's be honest here, there are not other reasons than tactical ones, yes, they maybe Chiken sh*t, but at least you get what you (read we)want, another win against Mexico. If Mexico will be in the same situation, they will do the same thing. It's called HOME ADVANTAGE !
I could see the Bay Area as being part of the Azteca compromise. We don't pick a cold venue, the Mexicans don't pick the high and smoggy Azteca. The Mexican leg is scheduled for Wednesday August 12. It could be hell there- High, Hot and Smoggy. I'm not sure that the Mexicans would even want to play there then. Stanford and Monterey would be a nice compromise.
With all the Mexican immigrant support, the USA will be a road team if they play here. Its always the same story.
It doesn't matter. We can win on the road. February 6, 2008 2-2 T Onyewu, Altidore Houston, Texas 70,103 February 7, 2007 2-0 W Conrad, Donovan Glendale, Ariz. 62,426 June 24, 2007 2-1 W Donovan, Feilhaber Chicago, Ill. 60,000 (SO) Sept. 3, 2005 2-0 W Ralston, Beasley Columbus, Ohio 24,685 Apr. 28, 2004 1-0 W Eddie Pope Dallas, Texas 45,048 May 8, 2003 0-0 T Reliant Stadium (Houston, Texas) 69,582 April 3, 2002 1-0 W Invesco Field at Mile High (Denver, Colo.) 48,476 February 28, 2001 2-0 W Columbus Crew Stadium (Columbus, Ohio) 24,624 June 11, 2000 3-0 W East Rutherford, N.J.45,008 Oct. 25, 2000 2-0 W Los Angeles, Calif. 61,072 And I don't mind a road trip to Palo Alto. Besides, we'll probably be able to qualify even if we lose to Mexico twice. Which is unlikely. The National team should reflect the nations characteristics. We're not chicken sh*ts. Playing in Columbus is chicken sh*t.
Its not like the olden days when everyone rooted for Mexico. I'm sure there will be a few US fans also. You are right however, in the last 10-15 years, the USMNT has their number. I remember this match played on Oct. 25, 2000 2-0 W Los Angeles, Calif. 61,072. I think LAndy scored if I am not mistaken...
True, but it's also a matter of gamesmanship. Which matters when it comes to WCQ's. I see the USA v Mexico game going to be in Columbus -- but I'd still be absolutely rapt if some other USA WCQ goes to Stanford or the Coliseum.