Should U.S. Play Mexico In Columbus?

Play it again, Uncle Sam - when it comes to facing Mexico in World Cup qualifying, the U.S. federation has christened Columbus, Ohio, as home, sweet home.

Go to original article

In early 2009, it will be time for another qualifying match between the U.S. and Mexico. Though the faces on the rosters change, it seems the places do not. Mexico prefers to play the United States in Mexico City and the U.S. counters with Columbus, Ohio, which was announced as the site for the match on February 11. Chief USA editor Andrea Canales and Mexico section editor César García debate the merits of the locations.

Question: Is Columbus the best venue for the U.S. Mexico qualifying match?

César García: I think the US has all the right to choose Columbus, due to the past positive results against Mexico there. The fan turn out is almost completely pro-US.  In a few more years, it can be compared to Mexico's use of the Azteca for qualification matches.

Andrea Canales: But why the same venue, every time? It's a big country, and unlike Mexico, the U.S. team is trying to build a following for the sport in the U.S. Why not vary the big game a bit?

García: It's simple, they want to take advantage of the cold climate, which in the past has affected El Tri negatively.  On the other hand, the US already proved they can earn a positive result against Mexico in another venue (Gold Cup 2007 Final), so I think it will be a good idea to take the game elsewhere.  Not only to allow more Mexico fans to attend, but if the US thinks that they are the "alpha-dogs" of the CONCACAF right now, then they have to beat Mexico anywhere during qualification.

Canales: I wouldn't go so far as to say "anywhere". I don't think the game should be held in San Diego, for example.

García: Yeah, San Diego and Los Angeles wouldn't be good moves for the US.

Canales: But why not Boston? Or St. Louis? I'd like the U.S. federation to show some "cojones" and not just hide in Columbus every qualifying cycle.

García: I agree, St. Louis, the birthplace of American soccer, would be a great choice and noteworthy decision by the US federation.

Canales: On the other hand, are the U.S. and Mexico playing a game of chicken? Does the U.S. lack incentive to move the games out of Columbus because Mexico isn't budging from using Azteca? There's something to be said for the idea that the U.S. shouldn't have to let go of its stubbornness in location if Mexico doesn't.

García: Mexico has established a history and tradition at the Azteca, which they hail as their futbol temple! Rather than a game of chicken, I think the US is seeing that as a model and hoping to one day establish Columbus as their soccer fortress and temple.

Canales: Crew Stadium is kind of a rickety temple, in my opinion. Not the most impressive venue. Now, I've been to Azteca for a U.S./Mexico game and the atmosphere is amazing, but don't fans of the team in other places around Mexico feel cheated of the chance to cheer the team? It's not as if El Tri doesn't play half their games that are friendlies in the States already, depriving their own country's fans of more chances to see them.

García: Of course they feel cheated and Mexico has what it takes to win in any stadium in Mexican territory.  It comes down to the impressive home record and atmosphere that you mentioned.  100,000 devoted souls are hard to find in the rest of Mexico, and even in other parts of the world.  I think that the rest of Mexico understands the importance of the Azteca during qualification, but they hold on to a slim hope that the FMF may take a game to their city. But the FMF only acts on monetary interests.  I personally wish that El Tri would play a qualifier at Jalisco stadium.

Canales: Jalisco has great history, too. That's where the El Tri Olympic team trounced the Americans back in 2004, knocking them out of defending their run to the medal round in Sydney 2000. To me, that's an example of how other venues can be very successful for the Mexican team, even against the other big gun of the region. I'm not sure, though, that Mexico is going to move from that tradition of using Azteca. I actually think the U.S. might try a qualifying game against Mexico outside of Columbus first. Part of the reason is that I'm not sure that the cold is such an advantage any more. After all, more players on El Tri are in Europe now, and they have to play in cold weather there.

García: Good point about the cold climate.  Games have to be played regardless of the weather.  It will serve both sides to expand their venues during qualification: the US to build more support; and Mexico to reach out to their forgotten faithful.  I was surprised when the rumor came out that the match might be played at Rio Tinto stadium. That would have been an interesting venue.

Canales:  Rio Tinto is a lovely stadium. But I guess there is something to be said about the history of Azteca, too.

García: I don't think Mexico will move away from the Azteca, either!

Canales:   I think, just like the U.S. team was so proud the one time they were able to get a draw out of there, it will mean that much more if and when the Americans ever get a win there. I think one reason why Utah might have been rejected was because this was the first game of the Hex - it sets the tone and establishes momentum for the other games. Neither team ever wants to lose, but whoever loses this one could start to get nervous. Honduras and Costa Rica would love that.

García: Good points. The first game is always crucial, but I think given Mexico's lamentable display in the previous round, they would settle with an improved performance that demonstrates an idea and understanding between coaches and players.  Both Mexico and US cannot lose sight of Honduras and Costa Rica, because they can easily complicate the Hexagonal.  Also, a win for the US at the Azteca may be seen as a reason to move the next qualifier to another stadium in Mexico, but that match will have to wait until August.