finally!

and they should bring it down to 1,500m IMO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6697159.stm

To be fair when I played football in Ecuador I didn't have a problem, but then again I had already been in the country for around 3 weeks.

Same with Cusco. I guess football teams arrive within a day of their match, and won't have time to aclimatise.

Where will the games be played now then? I don't think Lima is at a high attitude, Arequipa is though. I was led to believe most of Ecuador is at attitude.

I'm undecided about it. It adds to the confusion of results to play at altitude. Those countries will get pasted in the future I imagine.

I wonder what Puro will make of this.

Calidad wrote:To be fair when I played football in Ecuador I didn't have a problem, but then again I had already been in the country for around 3 weeks.

Same with Cusco. I guess football teams arrive within a day of their match, and won't have time to aclimatise.

Where will the games be played now then? I don't think Lima is at a high attitude, Arequipa is though. I was led to believe most of Ecuador is at attitude.

Lima is at sea level, and we've always played our matches there. Most players are from the coast, so playing in high altitude cities was counter productive. Ecuador has two major cities: Quito (high altitude), and Guayaquil at sea level. Ecuador is affected greatly by FIFA's ruling.

Is the stadia at Guayaquil as good as Quito?

Some of their FA's will be very unhappy about this ruling if it means losing out on revenues etc.

Cesc wrote:I wonder what Puro will make of this.

I think FIFA carefully said 2,500 meters so that Mexico isn't punished. Mexico is a major Coca Cola consumer, brings in tons of cash to FIFA. They don't want to piss the Mexicans off. I just don't buy that altitude threshold of 2,500 meters. Mexico City is at around 2,300 meters. Come the f@ck on FIFA!

FIFA could've easily said nothing above 2,000 meters, but then they don't get that huge Mexican cash in the future just for messing with them economically mighty Mexicans.

Puro wrote:

Cesc wrote:I wonder what Puro will make of this.

I think FIFA carefully said 2,500 meters so that Mexico isn't punished. Mexico is a major Coca Cola consumer, brings in tons of cash to FIFA. They don't want to piss the Mexicans off. I just don't buy that altitude threshold of 2,500 meters. Mexico City is at around 2,300 meters. Come the f@ck on FIFA!

FIFA could've easily said nothing above 2,000 meters, but then they don't get that huge Mexican cash in the future just for messing with them economically mighty Mexicans.

So if FIFA make a rule that affects Mexico, the people will stop drinking Coca Cola?

Ah, I spent some time in Quito (I played footy there too), didn't go to Guayaquil. I knew it was the otherside of the mountains, but didn't realise it was a coastal city, but it is thier biggest city I think?

Yea I guess with Lima being the capital it won't effect Peru as much, just that those outside of Lima (like in Cusco/Arequipa etc) won't see the national side play there anymore. How high is Trujillo?

Boliva will struggle the most. A lot of thier biggest cities are at a higher altitude.

todo wrote:and they should bring it down to 1,500m IMO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6697159.stm

You know damn well Brasil and Argentina were fully behind this one after Peru had registered Cuzco as a future host city for matches against Brasil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

You could deal with Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia. However, playing Peru in Cuzco broke the camel's back. Most of Peruvian players (the "foreigners" like Pizarro, Farfan...) were against playing in Cuzco. Nevertheless, I think Peru was gonna play with a Cienciano based team in Cuzco to try to defeat Brasil and Argentina there.

The timing's very interesting though. As soon as Peru registered Cuzco as host city for matches against Brasil, and Argentina, all hell broke loose.

I'm thinking this ruling is just about FIFA protecting Brasil and Argentina. FIFA won't f@ck with Mexico's altitude that's just 200 meters below their calculated estimate of punishable 2,500 meters.

Kimbo wrote:
So if FIFA make a rule that affects Mexico, the people will stop drinking Coca Cola?

Mexicans will never stop drinking Coca Cola, BUT Coca Cola may end their business partnership with FIFA prematurely. Think about it, no more "FIFA COCA COLA RANKINGS". I think after the USA, Mexico's the biggest Coca Cola money maker. You just don't mess with success.

Cesc wrote:I wonder what Puro will make of this.

Tell you what. I'm convinced Brasil and Argentina were behind this FIFA new ruling. FIFA can't mess with Mexico's just below the 2,500 meters above sea level. Here's hoping Peru replace Arequipa with Cuzco as host city against Brasil and Argentina just to f@ck with them. Arequipa's altitude is equal to that of Mexico City.

Argentina and Brasil didn't want to play against Peru in high altitude, and I don't blame them. They already had to deal with Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia. Adding Peru to the schedule, and a likely loss was too much.

it seems unfair to Bolivia though. They can't help living so high above sea level. It basically stops them from having the advantage of playing at home. All their home games would then have to be far away from them. In response, they should not allow other countries to play Bolivia at home either.

I hope Holland will still be allowed to host games below sea level.

toon h wrote:I hope Holland will still be allowed to host games below sea level.

Good one.

toon h wrote:it seems unfair to Bolivia though. They can't help living so high above sea level. It basically stops them from having the advantage of playing at home. All their home games would then have to be far away from them. In response, they should not allow other countries to play Bolivia at home either.

I hope Holland will still be allowed to host games below sea level.

The Bolivians, Colombians, and Ecuadorians are a bit angry at Perú. They feel registering Cuzco for the first time as a host city was the catalyst that made Brasil and Argentina jump and complain to FIFA.

We just wanted to have a pop at Brasil and Argentina at high altitude in Cuzco, just one time in our history. We've always played in Lima. We just wanted to see what the big deal was of playing at high altitude against the South American big boys.

We are still gonna play against them in Arequipa (altitude similar to Mexico City) which according to FIFA is allowed to host international matches. The FIFA bullshit is just gonna get better.

IF they're truly concern about players' health then FIFA shouldn't allow playing in over 100 degrees heat with 100% humidity. You can prepare for the altitude and minimize the effects, but NO ONE can prepare to play in Barranquilla at 3pm kickoff under those conditions.

so Bolivia will have to play their "home" games in another country, todo?

and good points, Puro.

toon h wrote:so Bolivia will have to play their "home" games in another country, todo?

and good points, Puro.

I'll take the freedom to answer your question toon. Bolivia will most likely use Santa Cruz which is around 600 meters above sea level. If I'm not mistaken Santa Cruz is also Bolivia's largest city.

Toon, of course not. they won't be able to play in La Paz only, but there are many Bolivian cities that could be used.

it's an absurd to play in La Paz. Flamengo players needed oxygen after a Libertadores game there, they felt sick. the fact is: they use the altitude as a weapon to beat other teams.

but the oxygen isn't the only reason. the ball runs much faster due to the thin air, so it's difficult for a sea level team to pass the ball. and it's much easier to score from outside the box. every shot is a full-power rocket.

for you to see how much difference it makes, it's common for Brazil to lose in Bolívia and than beat them here easily. Bolivia only qualified for the 1994 WC because of the altitude. they beat us 2-0 there. in Brazil, they lost 6-2. that's unfair.

here's a text by Englishman Tim Vickery about a Libertadores game played in La Paz. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6374675.stm

toon h wrote:so Bolivia will have to play their "home" games in another country, todo?

and good points, Puro.

take a look at this:

Together, Bolivar, The Strongest and Real Potosi have played 40 home games, recording 25 wins, nine draws and six defeats, scoring 78 and conceding 41.
By contrast, their away record is a chamber of horrors - 38 games, one win, two draws and 35 defeats, with 21 goals for and 104 against.
Indeed, The Strongest and Real Potosi have lost all of their away matches.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

something similar happened to Ecuador in the last WC qualifiers. they lost almost all their away matches, but won almost all their home matches, including Brazil and Argentine, obviously due to the altitude.

todo wrote:take a look at this:

Together, Bolivar, The Strongest and Real Potosi have played 40 home games, recording 25 wins, nine draws and six defeats, scoring 78 and conceding 41.
By contrast, their away record is a chamber of horrors - 38 games, one win, two draws and 35 defeats, with 21 goals for and 104 against.
Indeed, The Strongest and Real Potosi have lost all of their away matches.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

something similar happened to Ecuador in the last WC qualifiers. they lost almost all their away matches, but won almost all their home matches, including Brazil and Argentine, obviously due to the altitude.

Yo todo! I agree with the high altitude home field advantage that Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia enjoy. However, what about México? The only reason FIFA set it at 2,500 is because they don't want to mess with México's money.

If FIFA are gonna forbid Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia, then México should also be prohibited from playing at high altitude. México can easily play in Guadalajara or Monterrey. This ruling is strictly to benefit Brasil and Argentina, it's very discriminatory, it's wrong. And, everything points out to Perú as the culprit. Brasil and Argentina didn't want to play in Cuzco no matter what. We just wanted one shot at you two playing in Cuzco. Just one time todo! Just once!

agreed, I said in the beginning of the thread that I think the limit should be 1,500 m, or at least 1,800.

Puro wrote:

todo wrote:take a look at this:

Together, Bolivar, The Strongest and Real Potosi have played 40 home games, recording 25 wins, nine draws and six defeats, scoring 78 and conceding 41.
By contrast, their away record is a chamber of horrors - 38 games, one win, two draws and 35 defeats, with 21 goals for and 104 against.
Indeed, The Strongest and Real Potosi have lost all of their away matches.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

something similar happened to Ecuador in the last WC qualifiers. they lost almost all their away matches, but won almost all their home matches, including Brazil and Argentine, obviously due to the altitude.

Yo todo! I agree with the high altitude home field advantage that Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia enjoy. However, what about México? The only reason FIFA set it at 2,500 is because they don't want to mess with México's money.

If FIFA are gonna forbid Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia, then México should also be prohibited from playing at high altitude. México can easily play in Guadalajara or Monterrey. This ruling is strictly to benefit Brasil and Argentina, it's very discriminatory, it's wrong. And, everything points out to Perú as the culprit. Brasil and Argentina didn't want to play in Cuzco no matter what. We just wanted one shot at you two playing in Cuzco. Just one time todo! Just once!

Puro wrote:

Yo todo! I agree with the high altitude home field advantage that Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia enjoy. However, what about México? The only reason FIFA set it at 2,500 is because they don't want to mess with México's money.

Agreed. political decision.

I disagree with stopping them playing where they want to. Footballers are meant to be professional athletes, and hence, should be allowed to play wherever they (countries) want!

I'm sure if England had to play WC qualifiers at 4,000m you'd change your mind, cause England would surely lose to teams like Bolívia and Ecuador, the players would feel sick, the ball would run too fast and the likes of Lampard and Gerrard would miss all passes. Robinson would also have problems with the speed of the ball, even more problems than he had in Croatia.

no kidding, it gives me the creeps to watch games in La Paz on TV. we are unable to exchange more than 2 passes. long balls often are too long so that they cross the back line.

it's not just a hhelthy problem. I think the speed of the ball is as problematic as the lack of oxygen.

ads_afc wrote:I disagree with stopping them playing where they want to. Footballers are meant to be professional athletes, and hence, should be allowed to play wherever they (countries) want!

todo wrote:I'm sure if England had to play WC qualifiers at 4,000m you'd change your mind, cause England would surely lose to teams like Bolívia and Ecuador, the players would feel sick, the ball would run too fast and the likes of Lampard and Gerrard would miss all passes. Robinson would also have problems with the speed of the ball, even more problems than he had in Croatia.

no kidding, it gives me the creeps to watch games in La Paz on TV. we are unable to exchange more than 2 passes. long balls often are too long so that they cross the back line.

it's not just a hhelthy problem. I think the speed of the ball is as problematic as the lack of oxygen.

But its the same for both teams........the international fixture dates have to be agreed between all the teams. If its such a problem, they can go out there earlier and acclimatise.

If Ecuador are so bad that they always lose to Brazil, they might as well just pick their reserves and send them out their a week early to acclimatize!

It's not as simple as spending a few days "acclimatising", esp. when your opponents have spent their lifetimes playing football in those conditions. It becomes as if you're playing a totally different sport.

I never realised the speed and motion of the ball was affected, and reading about that in this thread has convinced me these teams have an unfair advantage.

But the players for Ecuador and Bolivia dont live at this altitude.....they also play for their clubs in other places.

but they were brought up in those conditions. anyway, if you're a bad team playing against a good one, it will favour you to have both teams fucked up.

ads_afc wrote:But the players for Ecuador and Bolivia dont live at this altitude.....they also play for their clubs in other places.

todo wrote:but they were brought up in those conditions. anyway, if you're a bad team playing against a good one, it will favour you to have both teams fucked up.

On the contrary - if your a good team then you should still win......its still a level playing field.
If your a bad team, you'd want to play at the peak of your powers...so you wouldnt want both teams f*cked up because it would hinder you more!

the ball really runs much faster, because of the rarified air. altitude teams usually take long distance shots all the time because it's much easier to score from afar. between, altitude long shot goals are usually very beautiful. they are truly unstoppable rockets.

once Casagrande, a Brazilian striker from the 80s, said that when he went to play in the altitude for the first time, he was impressed with the power of his shots when training.


if you take Ecuador goals at the last WC qualifiers, you'll see that most of them were long distance shots.

Ecuador away? nothing... they lost almost all their games...


Ecuador in the last WC qualifiers:

at home:
7 wins, 2 draws, 0 losses, 23 points

away:
1 win, 2 draws, 6 losses, 5 points

kas wrote:It's not as simple as spending a few days "acclimatising", esp. when your opponents have spent their lifetimes playing football in those conditions. It becomes as if you're playing a totally different sport.

I never realised the speed and motion of the ball was affected, and reading about that in this thread has convinced me these teams have an unfair advantage.