finally!

todo wrote: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

But if they keep the ball on the ground it doesnt change what happens does it, Footballers are professional athletes and should be able to cope.

Let's be realistic though, do you really think it's possibly to play an entire football match by just passing it on the ground? And don't forget, you also have to shoot at goal - imagine being a striker that can't predict what his shot will do, and so he doesn't even know how much power or swerve to put on it.

Short passing is also irrelevant if, like todo said, the opposition team just hits long shots all the time which confuse your goalkeeper.



Yes, footballers should be able to cope, but we're talking about danger to their health here. It's no joke that some players (as pointed out on the 1st page) needed special oxygen doses just after a match.

kas wrote:Let's be realistic though, do you really think it's possibly to play an entire football match by just passing it on the ground? And don't forget, you also have to shoot at goal - imagine being a striker that can't predict what his shot will do, and so he doesn't even know how much power or swerve to put on it.

Short passing is also irrelevant if, like todo said, the opposition team just hits long shots all the time which confuse your goalkeeper.



Yes, footballers should be able to cope, but we're talking about danger to their health here. It's no joke that some players (as pointed out on the 1st page) needed special oxygen doses just after a match.

Its the same for both sides though............if the Bolivians dont live at altitude then they have to acclimatise

And if they do: it explains why they dont do well in away games: they're not used to the altitude they're playing at when they play in Argentine...it averages itself out!

1. there's as much air near the ground as there is in the air (in spite of the term "air" applied here).


2. playing at the altitude is so much important for Bolívia and Ecuador that they always choose to play at the altitude.


3. I'm not worried about Brazil. Brazil and Argentina will qualify anyway, as ever. I'm worried about the quality of South American teams in the world cup. It's not good for the continent to send a team that qualified because of the altitude to play a WC at sea level.

Bolívia shouldn't have been sent to play in the USA WC in 1994. They weren't among our best. They qualified because of the altitude.

I just think it's unfair. they are making use of a weapon they won't be able to use at the World Cup.

Yeah, I was going to post this exact point earlier but accidentally lost my post - basically, it would look bad for Ecuador (for example) themselves if they somehow (ab)used this altitude advantage to qualify, but then made a fool of themselves at the World Cup, given their Away record in qualifying matches.

You could argue that the same applies to countries like Togo or Trinidad & Tobago, but at least they qualified on fair terms with everyone else in their group and didn't have a blatant advantage. Sure, it would be a dream for Ecuador and Bolivia fans, but a false one. If there's a silver lining, it's that they should view this as an opportunity to improve their football rather than always be dependent on altitude.

Ecuador didn't do badly at all at the world cup though. Better than Paraguay anyway.

toon h wrote:Ecuador didn't do badly at all at the world cup though. Better than Paraguay anyway.

Gave England a hard time - conceded only a weak Becks free-kick that any decent keeper should get, and Terry nearly cocked it up for England.

Would have been a shocker to see that Ecuador team in the quarterfinals.

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.

they dont need to be altitude to do that

todo wrote:1. there's as much air near the ground as there is in the air (in spite of the term "air" applied here).


2. playing at the altitude is so much important for Bolívia and Ecuador that they always choose to play at the altitude.


3. I'm not worried about Brazil. Brazil and Argentina will qualify anyway, as ever. I'm worried about the quality of South American teams in the world cup. It's not good for the continent to send a team that qualified because of the altitude to play a WC at sea level.

Bolívia shouldn't have been sent to play in the USA WC in 1994. They weren't among our best. They qualified because of the altitude.

I just think it's unfair. they are making use of a weapon they won't be able to use at the World Cup.

The truth is this though:
If they are used to playing at altitude then when there not at altitiude it goes against them which means that for all they have an advantage in home games, it disadvanatges them in away games.

OR

if there not used to playing at altitude, then both teams have to acclimatize and it shouldnt make that big a difference.

A lot of people train at altitude as it increases the amount of red blood cells you have to carry oxygen around your body to your muscles. When these athletes then run at sea-level they still have this extra capacity for carrying oxygen and therefore have more "stamina". Cyclists used to do blood-doping this way, by taking their own blood out after training at altitude then injecting their own blood into themselves before a race.

At altitude the players who are not used to it or able to cope with it become exhausted quickly, which also affects their decision making etc and removes the element of skill from the game.

At sea level the ecuadorians or bolivians are probably still fitter and able to run around more than the brasilians, but now the brasilians can use their skills to win as they are not completely knackered after 5 mins.

todo, the South American qualifying teams can hardly complain about the chances given to them to qualify. Out of 10 teams competing 5 can qualify, a ratio not seen anywhere else in the world. And remind me the last time any team outside of Brazil and Argentina reached the quarters. If a team like Uruguay cannot eliminate Bolivia, even playing at altitude (supposing they are better they must at least get 3 points from their encounters with them), they are surely not going to do well at the world cup.

toon h wrote:todo, the South American qualifying teams can hardly complain about the chances given to them to qualify. Out of 10 teams competing 5 can qualify, a ratio not seen anywhere else in the world. And remind me the last time any team outside of Brazil and Argentina reached the quarters. If a team like Uruguay cannot eliminate Bolivia, even playing at altitude (supposing they are better they must at least get 3 points from their encounters with them), they are surely not going to do well at the world cup.

One day I'd like to see them American teams with all their players together training for two weeks at least. Then let them have a crack at every European team, ready! Here we go!

Brasil-Germany
Argentina-Italia
Uruguay-France
Perú-Netherlands
Chile-England
Paraguay-Portugal
Colombia-Spain
Ecuador-Croatia
México-Czechia
USA-Turkey
Costa Rica-Sweden

WHAT'S UP! The myth that European teams are better would be crushed. Just two weeks with all the players in training, TWO FULL WEEKS! Todo and Barrilete know what I'm talking about!

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

we deserve that ratio, afterall we've won 9 WCs, 5 of them outside Conmebol's territory.

I don't know why you exclude Brazil and Argentina from "which SA teams reached the quarters" if they are South American teams indeed.

well, apart from Germany and Italy, remind me the last time an European team won a WC outside their national soil? never?

toon h wrote:todo, the South American qualifying teams can hardly complain about the chances given to them to qualify. Out of 10 teams competing 5 can qualify, a ratio not seen anywhere else in the world. And remind me the last time any team outside of Brazil and Argentina reached the quarters. If a team like Uruguay cannot eliminate Bolivia, even playing at altitude (supposing they are better they must at least get 3 points from their encounters with them), they are surely not going to do well at the world cup.

It can equally be spun the other way:

Aside from brazil and argentina, no team from south america has won the WC outside their homeland

uruguay

ads_afc wrote:It can equally be spun the other way:

Aside from brazil and argentina, no team from south america has won the WC outside their homeland

70 years ago

57

ads_afc wrote:70 years ago

todo wrote:we deserve that ratio, afterall we've won 9 WCs, 5 of them outside Conmebol's territory.

I don't know why you exclude Brazil and Argentina from "which SA teams reached the quarters" if they are South American teams indeed.

well, apart from Germany and Italy, remind me the last time an European team won a WC outside their national soil? never?

toon h wrote:todo, the South American qualifying teams can hardly complain about the chances given to them to qualify. Out of 10 teams competing 5 can qualify, a ratio not seen anywhere else in the world. And remind me the last time any team outside of Brazil and Argentina reached the quarters. If a team like Uruguay cannot eliminate Bolivia, even playing at altitude (supposing they are better they must at least get 3 points from their encounters with them), they are surely not going to do well at the world cup.

then again, typically out of the last 8 you have 6 or even 7 European teams with 1 or 2 South American teams. last world cup there were 4 European teams in the semis.

I am excluding Brazil and Argentina since they are the only teams doing well at the world cup from South America. I am not convinced by your argument that good American teams miss out on the world cup because they have to play at altitude.
Saying that, of course some European teams may not be up to scratch either, but decent teams like Denmark, Scotland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey or even Holland miss out on qualification as well. A strong team like Czech Republic had never qualified for the world cup before. In South America they would probably qualify every single time. (not that this is actually proveable, but there you have it)

well, there were 4 SA teams in the last WC. 2 (50%) reached the quarters.

Africa had 5. zero reached the quarters.

North America had 4. zero reached the quarters.

Asia had 4 (or 3?). zero reached the quarters.

let's not forget that, once again, the WC was held in Europe.

10 WCs were held in Europe, 4 in SA. I'm sure that if 10 WCs were held in South America we would have had many teams considered small reaching the semis.

todo wrote:well, there were 4 SA teams in the last WC. 2 (50%) reached the quarters.

Africa had 5. zero reached the quarters.

North America had 4. zero reached the quarters.

Asia had 4 (or 3?). zero reached the quarters.

let's not forget that, once again, the WC was held in Europe.

10 WCs were held in Europe, 4 in SA. I'm sure that if 10 WCs were held in South America we would have had many teams considered small reaching the semis.

we had our worst line up in years. angola,togo were Cr@p. next time im sure will be different since cameron wont be in the same group as ivory coast like last time. and nigeria will be quite strong with their talents.

I'm actually surprised. I guess that tv(or lack of tv appearance we might say) actually can make ppl believe anything. I actually have a lot of faith on the rest of aouth american teams.

About the original topic of the thread, I read the other day that the altitude limit would also stand for club football. I wonder how many clubs will be afected by this measure

Barrilete_Cosmico wrote:I'm actually surprised. I guess that tv(or lack of tv appearance we might say) actually can make ppl believe anything. I actually have a lot of faith on the rest of aouth american teams.

About the original topic of the thread, I read the other day that the altitude limit would also stand for club football. I wonder how many clubs will be afected by this measure

Gone are the days when we had to believe what was written by the press associated hyping their teams/players, and influencing-conditioning the minds of many people. Do you remember "La poderosa escuadra...." or "el gigante europeo...".

Satellite TV changed all that. Now we see that our teams were better all these years. I'm convinced of that, but lots of people's minds are having a hard time erasing that cassette. It's very difficult for someone to suddenly believe something completely different from what that person was told all his life.

I pay the satellite service for a couple of my cousins back home, and they can't believe the difference from what they've read all this time to what they actually watch during the games.

Anyhow, big protests from the Bolivians about this ruling. Was on CNN today.

Bolivian president Evo Morales proved that high-altitude football isn’t bad for health. Yesterday he played football in the front of the Bolivian government palace.

http://globoesporte.globo.com/ESP/Noticia/0,,MUL44497-4840,00.html

Welcome to South America!

sheva7 wrote:Bolivian president Evo Morales proved that high-altitude football isn’t bad for health. Yesterday he played football in the front of the Bolivian government palace.

http://globoesporte.globo.com/ESP/Noticia/0,,MUL44497-4840,00.html

Welcome to South America!

Doesn't really disprove anything. The Bolivian president is already acclimatised to the height, so in fact he really only prove sthat Bolivians are in an advantage.
Ideally people need at least two weeks to acclimatise. Thta's what this is all about, the inherent advantage they have at higher err.. heights.

If that's the case why do we allow Ethiopians to run in marathons? Surely living at altitude gives them a distinct advantage.

DD wrote:

sheva7 wrote:Bolivian president Evo Morales proved that high-altitude football isn’t bad for health. Yesterday he played football in the front of the Bolivian government palace.

http://globoesporte.globo.com/ESP/Noticia/0,,MUL44497-4840,00.html

Welcome to South America!

Doesn't really disprove anything. The Bolivian president is already acclimatised to the height, so in fact he really only prove sthat Bolivians are in an advantage.
Ideally people need at least two weeks to acclimatise. Thta's what this is all about, the inherent advantage they have at higher err.. heights.

Have you ever heard of irony?

Samba de Baiano wrote:If that's the case why do we allow Ethiopians to run in marathons? Surely living at altitude gives them a distinct advantage.

They're living at altitude but they're not competing at altitude.

living in altitude doesn't give you advantage if you play at sea level at all. I've seen some sports websites saying this this week, but it's wrong. that's no more than a myth.

but the opposite is true. a sea level team may suffer a lot at the altitude.

Samba de Baiano wrote:If that's the case why do we allow Ethiopians to run in marathons? Surely living at altitude gives them a distinct advantage.