With all the hexagonal information out now, and all of the speculation and analysis about home and away advantages/disadvantages, I'm curious about what exactly is our home advantage? I'm not being fatuous here, because we obviously have an outstanding home record, but everyone knows why México has a home field advantage -- altitude, smog, enormous, defeaningly loud stadium. Everyone knows about the home field advantages of the Central American teams -- stifling heat and humidity, rabid fans and subpar field conditions. What is our homefield advantage? I mean, we have passionate fans, but we don't have that many of them, and I don't think Sam's Army really makes anyone nervous like some other fanbases, especially when they are mitigated by usually strong away team support in the stadium. Sometimes we have cold weather, but really, other than the February Mexico game, I don't remember that many instances where it was anything other than pleasantly cool. At the end of the day, our home games are usually very pleasant atmospheres for playing soccer -- nice fields and stadiums, nice cities with nice hotels, decent weather, pretty respectful fans (if not outright partisan away fans). Sounds like the perfect away game situation. So what is our homefield advantage? Why do we do so well here? Obviously, it is much more comfortable to play in the US than to go down to Saprissa or Azteca, and you would expect to have a better record in a neutral or mildly positive site than in a majorly difficult one, but we have been too disproportionately dominant at home (to the point where other teams fear needing to get points in the US) that a better answer is necessary. Why are we so hard to beat on US soil?
Personally, I think the reverse is true, it's more a case of underperformance on the road. We're simply good enough to beat any team at home, and that's all there is to it. We just don't have the confidence yet to win every game away. Every success brings us just a little bit closer to believing we can, and when we do, that is when we'll be amongst the true elite.
Could be more of a not-away advantage (i.e., not suffering the consequences of the opponent's home field advantage).
The Project Mayhem clowns that throw plastic bottles on the field and use comical spanish grammer on signs to welcome the opposition "Welcome to the Devil"
and theres more.. asking for surnames before purchasing tickets Honestly how that lawsuit go ? anybody.. . ?
"Pleasantly cool" by US standards (low 50s or so) is still the coldest weather that the Carribean and Central American players (with the exception of those that play in Europe or MLS) have ever experienced.
That's what it's got to be 99% of the time--the not-away advantage. And I have always thought that having to play so many "home" matches in front of crowds dominated by fans for the opponent would make the US a much better road team psychologically. Maybe this is the year that the US gets some wins on the road to prove up that theory.
There's always the advantage, albeit slight, of simply not having to travel. Or maybe we're simply the "Kings of Fluke"
Every team has a massive advantage when they play at home. It's just easier to attribute that advantage to concrete attributes in some places (it's the smog! it's the weather! it's the fans!) than it is others. Road matches are hard for every team, every where, every time. This is why it's totally false to suggest that the US getting draws in Guatemala or Panama is somehow a bad result. Wins away are hard no matter the opponent
This thread pretty much makes the point that there really isn't much of a home field advantage for the USMNT. If the biggest advanage os the lack of travel, then I think the USSF should change their policy for where they place the qualifying matches. When 100,000 Mexicans show up for a match in the Rose Bowl, then the USSF should say "Thank you very much for the money. We'll be putting it into youth academies." If the USMNT can't beat teams like Panama without placing the game in weather so bad that only 9k show up, then we don't deserve to go to Germany in 2006. Lay down a challenge to the team--there will be no more crutches.
I think there are two groups of reasons that teams have a hard time on the road: First are factors that apply to any traveling team--the exhaustion of having to travel, the unfamiliarity of the surroundings, the psychological disadvantage of being in an unfamiliar place. These benefit the US at home and work against it abroad. Second are factors that are team-specific--altitude, weather, rough pitch, general hostility rabid home support. The US occasionally enjoys some of these factors when at home (e.g., weather) but more often than not doesn't (e.g., no intimidating home support). So we have a slight advantage when playing at home, but other Concacaf teams have a huge advantage when playing at home. Thus the difference between our home and away performance is substantial.
People underestimate what it's like to go on the road and play in front of a wildly nationalistic crazy set of fans.... this simply doesn't happen in the usa...sure there might be 5,000 decent supporters here in the states, but some places there's 50-100k and the environment is very stimulating.. I think the quality of the play on the road under arena is very remarkable given the obvious HOME field edges in concacaf barring canada and the usa... I was at the South_Korea - usa 1-1 match...and the din of noise beginning several hours prior to the match till the last whistle STILL has my hears ringing.... too many people discount the ABILITY of arena to take his team into these environments and get the job done....too many think you walk into azteca and saprissa and get the job done.... these people have never been in these environments and have never attempted to perform these sort of tasks....
Maybe play a friendly against El Tri in the Rose Bowl BEFORE OR AFTER qualifying if you want the money or you want to harden the boys up for tough venues. But no way do you remove our qualifying advantages (however small) or create additional qualifying obstacles. That's simply a very, very bad idea.
That Hondu embassador never stood a chance.. . i remember a while back the super secret project mayhem group tried disrupting a teams concentration by making noise outside that teams hotel, not sure how that went. Now that we know that the U.S has almost no home field advantage can we actually expect one to develope ?
Picking up on the "less travel" idea, I think that among all teams in CONCACAF, the US depends on players playing for clubs in Europe more than any other team. (Jamaica or Canada might be the only ones close.) Having to fly twice (first to a camp in the US) or connect with the team in Miami (for example), is a big drain on the body. Secondly, soccer really is a team game. If you don't believe that, see Korea at the 2002 WC, USA at the 1994 WC, the US Women before and after the WUSA or the US draw at Mexico in 1997 for teams who outperformed their talent level because they had extended residency camps. The first three of these teams were essentially club teams. When the US can get together after a shorter flight, have more time to train as a team in familiar surroundings, it always has a beneficial effect on performance. That said, I think every US fan would want an Azteca or Saprissa behind them for every home game.
Well, not that I know anything of what you speak--my police escort from the Crystal City DoubleTree notwithstanding The first rule is to not talk about it... However, one of the subsequent rules (back in the day) was to only mayhemize the countries who predicated such treatment. Looking at USA's draw, we host Guatemala and Costa Rica first, so...I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is for payback. I'm guessing reaching the final 8 in Korea makes Mazetenango water under the bridge, but perhaps Tyler Durden (oops!) has a differing point of view. I do see that Mexico will host US before Labor Day. I would hope that the local fans treat our team fairly--I'd hate to have to make Mexico our bitch. Oh right...too late.
Not really. Some of those players are playing in England. Of course, most of them played for Jamaica.
To answer the title question, the USA's home field advantage is 0.52 goals per game (over the last eight years, against the other top 11 teams in CONCACAF). Interestingly, of those 11 teams, only Honduras, Canada, and Guatemala have a smaller home field advantage. Mexico, and perhaps surprisingly, Trinidad and Tobago, and Panama have the largest home advantage. In the table below, HGD is home goal differential, GD is (overall) goal differential, and the difference, HA, is home advantage: Code: TEAM HGD GD HA MEX 2.84 1.26 1.58 TRI 0.83 -0.30 1.13 PAN 0.67 -0.45 1.12 HAI -0.29 -1.22 0.93 JAM 0.76 -0.15 0.91 SLV -0.10 -0.89 0.80 CUB 0.09 -0.64 0.73 CRC 1.29 0.63 0.66 USA 1.60 1.08 0.52 HON 0.84 0.42 0.43 CAN -0.06 -0.38 0.32 GUA 0.32 0.03 0.29