I don't know if they can justify playing on these turf fields. Anyone remember the crime against humanity committed by the Canadian fed in the '15 WWC? I don't know how those ladies have recovered.
If they're considering baseball fields on turf, certainly we could consider one w/out it that could be convenient in Seattle's Safeco. Weather should be good enough, but as a bonus it has a retractable roof. Sounders were prepared to play there, even during the baseball season. Offseason would provide a chance to smooth it. Also, if it's in Toronto or Montreal, they could have it in Red Bull Arena. Just control ticket sales like v. mexico. Or milwaukee has a dome w/ grass. We have sufficient options to where we don't need to accept long flights. Everything could be close, from Jan. camp all the way thru. This is why the US should wait on Canada.
So Montreal has the problem is that if there is a certain amount of snow they can't play because of risk of collapse of the roof apparently. The Blue Jays stadium is a retractable roof and they have in the past brought in grass for international friendlies. The concern from what I've read 1) that they reconfigured the stadium as the CFL team moved to BMO and it may not usable for soccer anymore and 2) whether there is enough time put in a grass field.
Just go with BC Place then. Sounds like overthinking. And yes I have a vested interest in this, since I live on the west coast.
I think its the players who prefer Toronto and I think the CSA is trying to see if there is a way of accommodating them.
Generally I feel like New York in January is not ideal as far weather goes (though super convenient in terms of travel for our European guys). New York has like huge diasporas of basically every immigrant group so you run a risk of not having a pro-US crowd. They've also been pretty adamant that they aren't going to play on any field that's not grass so I think that rules out places like Seattle. I do think they are waiting on Canada before making a decision.
So my general view is that FIFA does need to set basic requirements for qualifiers, like requiring grass fields, making sure fields are in good condition, and making sure all stadiums are set up for VAR. And they should provide funding to countries to help do these things. I guess I'm less worried about the altitude compared to some of those other issues. And countries like Canada can't really help it that it's basically cold everywhere in January. I do think though that we should avoid having games in conditions like the snow bowl against Costa Rica. That wasn't the kind of conditions we should have been playing qualifying in.
New turf will be installed. The project is to be finished only a week before the game. It must be certified by FIFA.
I thought they had a full roof at Red Bull Arena. Don't get the point of partial roofs. So scratch that. Hoping Canada holds it in Vancouver, so we have Pacific Northwest options. Otherwise I like Milwaukee (no bias). I don't get the prioritization of surface over environment. There are players who play virtually their entire careers on field turf. And there isn't acclimatization to it, unlike elevation & climate, naturally. Those in extreme climates take off winter for a reason.
I personally don’t actually know the difference, but I know players feel pretty strongly about grass versus turf. Which is unfortunate because it rules out a number of options. If they did Vancouver we could have done our games in Portland and Seattle, which would minimize travel and lead to pretty pro-US crowds. Goff confirms that we are waiting on Canada before finalizing Waiting on Canada home match (VAN or TOR), which will help dictate USMNT venues (West or East/Midwest-South) https://t.co/PMxWG5O6Sf— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) November 15, 2021
There are different studies, but this one shows the perception is antiquated & it's psychological at this pt. https://www.americansocceranalysis.com/home/2019/1/7/turf-and-injuries-the-data-hurts "To repeat myself, MLS teams that play on turf average three and a half injury absences per game, and so do MLS teams that play on grass. There is no difference in the rate of injuries between turf and grass teams." That's what I want! Seattle even has a grass field with a roof, if the surface or weather were still concerning. As they should. It's a game of chicken, that we have more on the line for, if they move first.
If Canada picks Toronto indoors, then I think 1 of 2 matches is guaranteed to go to Orlando. The other pick is tricky... You're going to risk either cold weather, an East Coast MLS stadium, a larger NFL type stadium like Nashville, or extra travel out West. An outdoors Toronto match makes it easier for the US - then USSF should just select a cold weather city for the first match. It might get easier if Honduras loses again tomorrow, deflating their fanbase.
Feels like it's sort of tricky in terms of East Coast/Midwest options that won't be too cold in January. Orlando seems like it would for sure be picked. Miami seems like a no go with the large Latin American diaspora there. Atlanta would be interesting but they don't have a grass field. Chicago seems like it'd be too cold. Maybe Kansas City? Though it won't be that warm there either.
Orlando makes sense as long as they keep up the strict ticketing policy for El Savador. Utah is the only venue I might consider but it still gets pretty cold there.
They could always go back to Austin, Texas. TBH, USSF probably should have saved Austin for January. The scheduling is definitely more difficult for this combination of matches in a January window. El Salvador and Honduras are the trickiest opponents in the Ocho to schedule other than Mexico, and Canada has multiple combinations of locations and weather that has to be taken into account. I think USSF can take a few more risks for some of these opponents, but not Mexico, El Salvador, or Honduras. For the other opponents, I think it's safe to risk any MLS venue outside New York or Southern California.
How big is the travel factor, and how much are you (the team) willing to weight it against ensuring a good crowd? Is a couple hours extra for a flight worth it to help guarantee 90/10 in the crowd?
Do they keep the grass in good condition through the winter or do they close the roof and re-sod for baseball season?
In addition to the surface issue, any NFL stadium is pretty much ruled out because these games are in the middle of the NFL playoffs. The NFL team would have to be mathematically eliminated prior to the announcement of the venue choice, which isn't the case for even the terrible teams at this point.
Different sports, but the NFLPA did a study in the past year or so that showed that players were injured at higher rates on turf than grass. Although I also think we should take into account that the study was funded by a players association which could also show bias
Agreed. Scotland just finished second in their group, which means a home and home in March against a side that is probably better than they are. So they are thinking of hosting their home match here:
very sad to even think about. I hate expanding the World Cup. Qualifying is a part of the beautiful experience.
What are the chances that an East Coast venue is selected or around the Northeast? Just curious. From everything that people are reading
Indeed if we weren’t playing El Salvador or Honduras specifically, DC would have been a great option, Orlando seems like it’s definitely happening if Canada does Toronto. It’s just the other game I’m not sure about.