Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course they should have a home stadium, you turn that place into a fortress that people hate going to. Some countries create horrible atmospheres for visiting teams and their supporters. Ireland for a time had Lansdowne road as a place where teams knowing basically that they wont get a win. The players know every square inch, bobble, dip, how the wind blows everything about it.
If Ireland moved to Croker or other facilities which could hold a game then you couldnt gain that.
Well, but that makes Ireland to look more like a club than a real National Team. It's the price countries have to pay for having a home stadium.
Sorry guys, I understand the rationale for having a home stadium in a very small country, but the concept of a National team sticking to a single venue, IMO, goes against the very concept of "national". No worries.
It doesnt make them look like a club, its a home ground. A place that people fear to go.
If Ireland playing to the US you can say if its in the Sounders stadium, its an intimidating place to play at because the fans there are great with the atmosphere you play. If youre playing in Rio Tinto, arguably one of the worst places in the MLS for atmosphere you are extremely happy because it gives you more of an advantage.
Are England, France, Argentina, Belgium, Columbia, Croatia, Greece, Mexico, Netherlands, Russia, Uruguay club teams? Because they all have national stadiums!
It's only really Spain, Italy, Germany and the US that have no national stadium. See the similarities? All countries with more than one city of similar sizes.
Our National Stadium in Indianapolis, or Minneapolis? Those are two lower level cities, as in they're not in the top 10, or 12 cities in this country. Better to have it in a premier city.
Besides, it's best to move the matches around. The US is too big, and has too many great venues to limit things to just one.
Let it go guys, it's just my opinion. I have a problems associating a truly National Team to represent a whole nation when they call just one city/stadium home and depend on the cheering of the fans of that a particular stadium to fuel their enthusiasm. That's so club-like to me, sorry. It's not like most of the countries mentioned have just one major city with a big stadium in the whole country, it's just sad. Luckily, Brazil is not like that!
Let it go guys, it's just my opinion. I have a problems associating a truly National Team to represent a whole nation when they call just one city/stadium home and depend on the cheering of the fans of that a particular stadium to fuel their enthusiasm. That's so club-like to me, sorry. It's not like most of the countries mentioned have just one major city with a big stadium in the whole country, it's just sad. Luckily, Brazil is not like that!
You should let it go, your just sounding weird. "American ways gotta be right"
I have no issue with national stadiums ... however, I don't like it for the US given the geography of the nation, expense of travel, need to grow the game nationwide with a "showcase" match for the locals and that the US can use different stadiums for different advantages pending on the opponent, season, etc ...... there is a lot of diversity and big venues that can be used here .... it's just different than other places
A place like Azteca makes sense in MX - it's in a giant population center, bad air quality, high altitude, low security .... makes it very tough for a team to go to
Many other nations have a large venue near the major population center (which is also relatively easily to commute to for a large percentage of the other population) - best capacity, best location, consistency and if there is something in the geography, weather, field that gives you an advantage so be it
The US can move that around ...... games in Columbus, the Boston Metro, etc can be tough and it's better to play someone like the MX national team there than in AZ or CA - especially when the weather starts turning cold and nasty
Some of the stadiums listed in the options aren't going to work at this time because of their surface (field turf) - places like Indy, Seattle, etc ..... this may evolve over time though
I would love to see Seattle in a regular rotation as it's a tough place to play, the fans are great and most nations that would visit wouldn't have a large local population to skew the stands
One the country is too big, if you put it in NY, how is that fair to passionate soccer fans in LA or vice versa
Two, it wouldnt be financially viable, i dont know how many matches the US team plays at home each year, but lets call it 10, plus finals and others for probably a maximum 15 matches, on 1 90.000 + seater stadium the sums dont add up, and thats assuming it is filled for every match
Three, There are already plenty of large stadiums in many cities throughout the country, capable of hosting international matches, and this allows you to match the stadium to the game, so if you are playing brazil for example you will want to choose the largest capacity, if you are playing qatar, then a smaller stadium will do
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
