Will South American teams have advantage in Brasil?

They're more used to playing in the climate anyway, but are the South American teams going to have any advantage in the World Cup in Brasil, compared to teams from other parts of the world? Is it going to be more of a home tournament for them or just for the host nation Brasil? Are they going to feel more confident in their own continent than they would elsewhere? Will neutral South American fans cheer for any / most SA teams? Tell me!

Well, the home crowd will likely mainly boost Brazil.

The climate is a plus for all South American teams, I guess.

The top teams consist of high performance athletes, though, so they should be able to perform even despite the for them not so usual climate.

The teams that consist of only moderately trained players will have the biggest problem with the environment, I guess.

Bar Argentina, yes.

Argentina will be playing away every single game and their opponents will be playing a home game.I dont expect that to influence them early on though since they are probably going to roll past their group.

I think the fans thing is overhypped, more neutrals then die hard fans, and in the final/semi's only the rich get to watch.

Uruguay will have away condition as well methinks.

Chile/Uruguay/Argentina's climate is nothing like Brazil's.

Also Argentina and Uruguay will play every match as an away team.

Nah, Uruguay are fake rivals,the only south american team we consider as a rival is Argentina.The crowd might actually be supporting Uruguay vs Italy and England and they will probably support every other South American team.

Btw, Argentina aren't the only ones playing away every game, the favorites like Germany and specially Spain will also be given hell.It will be even worse if Diego Costa starts.

Donuts wrote:I think the fans thing is overhypped, more neutrals then die hard fans, and in the final/semi's only the rich get to watch.

Almost every top NT won a WC played at home and you think home advantage is overhypyed?And even if only the rich go to stadium , this is not Europe.look at the fan support at the confederations cup

Didn't Uruguay get cheered on against Spain and Italy in Confed Cup?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27187741

I think Uruguay will have a big advantage actually - as they are a fairly wealthy country, they will have a lot of supporters coming to their matches probably.

And they won't face the same animosity as Argentina from the Brazilian crowd.

Its not just climate, its the aura of the stadiums, the crowds. To many European players they wont have experienced anything like it. It wont feel slightly familiar. Also, its not just about the stadiums and the crowds its also about the south american playing style being more suitable to a humid climate.

Aside from Brazilians, South American players from Argentina to Colombia to Peru are accustomed to the football culture and the stadiums there, also playing in such a climate through playing in Libertadores and Copa America.

Also I suspect people usually overstate the difference in climates between Brazil and Argentina. There must be some overlap between Argentina and Brazils climate for example. Brazils north is tropical and would have a similar climate to Colombia etc, however the south is sub-tropical much like Argentinas. Sao Paulo, Porto Alegre, Curtiba and to a lesser extent, Rio all fall on a similar latitude to Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Rosario.

As I said I think the football culture could be the bigger shock to many European players. Having said that ultimately this is just an advantage. Likewise, England have a barrage of supporters travel to world cups which supposedly offers an advantage, it doesnt seem to help. In fact if I have to put up with another shot of a crying kid with the st george cross painted on his face after our inevitable loss, whilst the Serie A advocates mock us.

Just a question, why has this been such a big topic for this WC? Never have I once heard this question being asked regarding Europeans NT when the WC was in Europe..

Well, that's because the climate in Europe is considered to be moderate, while in South America it is more tropical. It is easier to play in cooler / less humid surroundings than where it is hot and humid, so those people who are used to the hotter and more humid climate will likely have an advantage. (As a side note - an extreme case is Bolivia, for example. When other teams - even other South Americans -  have to play in Bolivia they are strongly disadvantaged because of the environment, too.)

Mm, I think Europe is more neutral not only in climate, but also in the atmosphere and crowds and how you go about things. I dunno, I could be wrong, but I just have this perception that going from Europe to South America is a bigger "shock" or unfamiliarity than vice versa.

By the way, I remember a DFB PK some days ago where Miroslav Klose said that he was told by his Italian team mates who attended the Confed Cup in Brazil that they were really exhausted after only a rather short time of playing due to the climate.

Accordingly, Jogi Löw commented that he would need to adjust the match tactics to that as it would be virtually impossible to keep up a fast game over the full 90 minutes.

I guess that's what Peccadillo meant by South American playing style being more suited to the climate.

rwo power wrote:Well, that's because the climate in Europe is considered to be moderate, while in South America it is more tropical. It is easier to play in cooler / less humid surroundings than where it is hot and humid, so those people who are used to the hotter and more humid climate will likely have an advantage. (As a side note - an extreme case is Bolivia, for example. When other teams - even other South Americans -  have to play in Bolivia they are strongly disadvantaged because of the environment, too.)

But that's the thing, the entire continent doesn't have the same climate. Chile, for example, won't have that much of a bigger advantage regarding the climate than countries like Spain.

harhar11 wrote:

rwo power wrote:Well, that's because the climate in Europe is considered to be moderate, while in South America it is more tropical. It is easier to play in cooler / less humid surroundings than where it is hot and humid, so those people who are used to the hotter and more humid climate will likely have an advantage. (As a side note - an extreme case is Bolivia, for example. When other teams - even other South Americans -  have to play in Bolivia they are strongly disadvantaged because of the environment, too.)

But that's the thing, the entire continent doesn't have the same climate. Chile, for example, won't have that much of a bigger advantage regarding the climate than countries like Spain.

Dude it's just an excuse tbh.

Well, but the Chilean NT is more often involved into matches against the other CONMEBOL NTs, while the UEFA teams play far more often against other UEFA teams in Europe, so the experience is still a bit different.

rwo power wrote:Well, but the Chilean NT is more often involved into matches against the other CONMEBOL NTs, while the UEFA teams play far more often against other UEFA teams in Europe, so the experience is still a bit different.

Yeah, but Chilean NT usually just plays in Brazil once every 4 year..

This whole "South American home advantage" thingy is hogwash. The usual reasoning is weather conditions. But take Argentina for example. Messi, Agüero, Zabaleta, Di Maria, Higuain, Mascherano. All playing in Europe for YEARS. They aren't any more accustomed to hot and humid weather than anyone else.

History tells us that the last time on South American soil 7 out of 8 quarter finalists were European teams in 1994. lol Before that you had 3 out 4 semi finalists being European in 1986 as well.

Spain will probably walk this again by just keeping possession and making everyone chase the ball and tire themselves out. Then sub on all the speed merchants Navas, Deulofeu and Pedro in the 70th minute.

Obviously Brazil have the home advantage. Argentina have insane firepower upfront. Chile are dark horses. All other South American teams suck donkey balls.

Galaxy jacket & black pants. Spring or Summer is no excuse for me not to be wearing my Galaxy jacket.

I think only the Southern Europeans might adapt to the weather conditions more easily than the Northerners. Just realized that Portugal will also have the crowd in their favor too unless they challenge Brazil along the way.

Oh and expect for some freaky weather, btw. IIRC, the El Nino phenomenon brought an Atlantic Hurricane to Brazil at one point and hurricane season usually begins in this time of year. The weather here in LA has been freaky for the last 3 weeks straight. Certainly not your typical spring.

I split off the "what are you wearing stuff" - please go here: http://www.goallegacy.net/t35819-what-are-you-wearing-right-now

With the group stages nearing fruition, how do people feel about this subject?

I think central and south America have faired better than they would ordinarily. In fact I think every south American team performed beyond expectations (except for Brazil and Argentina who met). Ecuador and Honduras also met, imo.

Notably;
Mexico: A lot of people thought Croatia would edge this one..
Chile: Although they undoubtedly have a brilliant team right now, did the "home advantage" help?
Colombia: We all knew they would top the group, would they would do it so convincingly in Russia?
Costa Rica: Exceeded everyone's expectations.
Uruguay: Although many suspected they might pip England for second spot.. Not many thought they would beat both Italy and England.

Not bringing this up to discredit the south American teams in any way. It was just a topic of discussion prior to the cup starting and there was some contention as to whether or not climate/atmosphere etc influence results. Maybe some disagree that central and south American sides have performed above expectations..

*south OR central American teams (sorry, can't edit)