Ok, count me as one of those who feel that scheduling a qualifier in St. Paul on February 2 was flat-out stupid. There's no need for that kind of cuteness. Going back to Cincinnati or Nashville after Columbus and Toronto would've been cute enough. Sometimes the world of sports is ridiculously monkey-see-monkey-do. Canada just stupidly held a qualifier up in Edmonton in November (which they should not be allowed to do again), and so now we want to repeat the feat with Minnesota in February. No offense to Minnesota fans. I'd have been happy for you guys to have gotten a game at your new Allianz Field in September or October...
I don’t understand these locations at all. We could put these games just about anywhere and thrash these teams. Why put them in places where it might snow and turn the game into a rando-fest? What’s the point of playing these in freezing weather?
I wonder if the heating is strong enough to be effective in extreme cold. The main purpose it was designed for may have been just extending the growing season a few weeks, or melting some frost, not making the pitch playable on a cold February night
I love it. Have the people complaining not played in cold weather before? Once you get moving it’s fine. The field is heated, so the surface should be as good as anywhere else.
Why shouldn't Canada be allowed to host a game in Edmonton? Why exactly was it dangerous? Was it more dangerous than playing in the afternoon sun in +38c in Honduras? Isn't that more dangerous to the health of players?
In all honesty, I want all of the US's remaining home matches to be in ice cold weather with driving snow. I'm all for USSF making the USMNT's opponents suffer. The whole region does it to the US with 100+ degree weather. Why not do it back?
Not if we make our own team suffer. In this coming window, minimizing travel time/distance and not changing time zones across the three games made a lot of sense. Freezing temps - possibly with snow, etc - are not necessarily to our advantage, in games we are the superior team and need to win.
Seems ridiculous to me to schedule a mid-winter game for Minnesota. Why do we think the US players will somehow prefer that environment? The certain bitter cold and potential for absolutely ridiculous conditions only level the playing field. That’s great if you are the worse team. It’s foolish if you are the better team. The only reason Columbus seems even remotely reasonable is it’s not Minnesota. Surely the fed could find a better spot and still limit ticket sales in a way that ensured a majority partisan crowd. Really seems boneheaded.
We would have a worse chance of winning in a driving snow match in St Paul than we would in 70 degree weather anywhere else in the US, that’s why.
What you're asking for is a low-skill game with lots of unpredictability factor and the risk of injuries.
Indeed. We're the most talented team in the region. We don't need play in a blizzard to beat Honduras, who we recently beat on the road 4-1, who we last beat in qualifying at home 6-0 last cycle...
The last thing you want in these games is snow. It makes the surface unpredictable which will make the game more susceptible to a random outcome. We are the better side in these games by a large margin. Minimize the variables, make the game about soccer, and we will win. I’m afraid these sites don’t do that.
Columbus is way more likely to be OK than St. Paul. Orlando has a nice stadium. You might even reduce the amount of pre window “slight hamstring pulls” amongst Euro based players if the third game in the window was a bit of a reward for putting up with the first two.
For all the people complaining about Minnesota, since the field there is heated, will that make a difference at all?
And it’s not like we are frustrated because the “random venue selector” spit out St Paul. That’d be crappy enough. The fed actually did this ON PURPOSE. It boggles. If ‘less travel from Canada,’ ‘gotta spread qualies around at least a little don’t we,’ ‘need to be away from Honduran fan centers,’ and ‘let’s use our climate to indimidate the opponent,’ were the winning factors here over “can we be confident our players will be able to play well here,’ then it’s just a failure. What am I missing that makes this make sense? I mean, I wonder why the December friendly is in a 27,000 seat stadium in southern California? Why wasn’t that camp set up in Fargo or Green Bay? It sounds rhetorical but I gather the fed considered such places since the risk of really cold, snowy weather is seen as an advantage. Wouldn’t Gregg want to see which players play well in those conditions? Are different parts of the fed responsible for venue choices for friendlies v. qualifiers?
Big Soccer will always complain. But there is a meaningful difference between September and February.
I guess it depends on what that heating system is designed to accomplish. If it just keeps the ground from freezing into concrete, then it doesn’t really help so much. It’s more of a minimum necessary to get Concacaf or FIFA approval. Like playing on a clearly too small but still “regulation” pitch.