[Rodriguez]

Many point to Brazil as favourites for the World Cup due to home advantage. It goes without saying that it can be an advantage to play at home. However, there are two sides to every coin and home advantage can bring immense pressure. In a country that breathes football like Brazil, the expectation and pressure could be so great that it becomes crippling.

This can happen to the team as a collective, but can also affect certain individuals more than others. Looking at the selecao, it is fair to say that the main focus of the attacking impetus is expected to come from Neymar. The weight on his shoulders to perform on home soil will be greater than that of his team mates, with all the media attention and inescapable hype. He was great at the Confederations Cup last summer, but we all know there is a world of difference between that tournament and the World Cup. If he crumbles under pressure, Brazil's attack suddenly looks a lot less potent.

More often than not I would say playing at home is an advantage, and if Neymar can handle the pressure and perform like he did last summer Brazil can go all the way. But 1950 showed that it's no guarantee, plus the advantage of playing on South American soil doesn't hold the same weight as it once did. Modern technology and advances in sports science means players can acclimatise (both physically and mentally) better than they could in the good old days.

Finally, with many international tournaments the pressure and expectation is shared amongst several favourites. In this circumstance, you feel that teams such as Spain, Germany and Argentina may feel a little less pressure than if the tournament was held in a more neutral venue (such as in 2010).

So, do you think Brazil will lift the trophy due to home advantage or do a chokejob?

what you think
please discuss

 

[JCamilo]

Home advantage still pay off in Football, right? Most home teams still getting better results than not. Reggarding Brazil NT, I am trying to remember last time the NT lost a game in an official match. It goes back to Uruguay in 1950?

But, home advantage never saved a mediocre team, it is an advantage that must be capitalized, unless you mean the typical crowd pressure on referees, etc.

 

[pavnedved]

Rod, I think home advantage is a big advantage for Brazil as we saw in last Confeds Cup and as the record shows. It's not just the crowd, the weather in Brazil is also a big advantage for Brazil. And I think other teams that participated in Confeds Cup have a leg up on the ones that didn't in terms of fitness / preparation wrt dealing with the weather.

 

[Ajala]

When the games start, none of these mean anything.
A miss kick, a late challenge, a lucky bounce... are all going to be more important than anything you can say about home advantage or weather.

 

[JCamilo]

Yeah, because weather does not impact the game at all, right?

 

[Reza]

Everything else being equal - chance of lucky bounce, miss kick and others is the same for all in theory - home advantage is an advantage.

 

[Ajala]

Yeah, because weather does not impact the game at all, right?

It's just my opinion, I think as much as we like to talk about Brazil's climate, traveling distance and other stuff now; when the games start and we try to analyze a game, I think all of us naturally will be talking about tactics, player selections, luck, referees and so on.

We are not talking abut La Paz here, and even if we were, it is not much of a factor if everybody has been playing Europe for years.

 

[Joudre]

Bresil needs to play that 7 forget about home advantage.

 

[Rodriguez]

Home advantage still pay off in Football, right? Most home teams still getting better results than not. Reggarding Brazil NT, I am trying to remember last time the NT lost a game in an official match. It goes back to Uruguay in 1950?

But, home advantage never saved a mediocre team, it is an advantage that must be capitalized, unless you mean the typical crowd pressure on referees, etc.

Regarding mediocre teams I agree - for example home advantage was never going to be enough for South African to win 2010, USA to win 1994, etc. If this World Cup was on "neutral soil" then Brazil would still be considered one of the favourites. Just that I think it could possibly be a double-edged sword... I hope not though, I have a soft spot for the selecao.

Rod, I think home advantage is a big advantage for Brazil as we saw in last Confeds Cup and as the record shows. It's not just the crowd, the weather in Brazil is also a big advantage for Brazil. And I think other teams that participated in Confeds Cup have a leg up on the ones that didn't in terms of fitness / preparation wrt dealing with the weather.

I think with the way teams can now prepare for major tournaments, with all the advances in sports science, modern technology and everything else, the advantage that Brazil have with the climate is marginalised. In fact, I wonder how much of an advantage it truly is?

I understand some teams are training in different countries specifically chosen to help deal with the climate in Brazil, plus I'm sure other methods to help acclimatise that are not so apparent. It goes without saying that the preparation is gone over with a fine-toothed comb so no detail is overlooked.

 

[JCamilo]

It's just my opinion, I think as much as we like to talk about Brazil's climate, traveling distance and other stuff now; when the games start and we try to analyze a game, I think all of us naturally will be talking about tactics, player selections, luck, referees and so on.

We are not talking abut La Paz here, and even if we were, it is not much of a factor if everybody has been playing Europe for years.

Yeah, sure. Weather in brazil, combined with the traveling will be a factor to everyone and will be an advantage to anyone, just like it is in many games, not just La Paz. Germany does not travel much, but for example, play games in sequence in the brazilian north beaches, this may cost a lot - even if they adapt. Italy and England open the cup in Manaus, first games are usually slower, imagine what can happen there. And even adaptation will be problematic, as the conditions can be very different from Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia or Salvador.

It is not an advantage to Brazil, but Beligum playing Belo Horizonte- Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro will certainly face less physical strain.

 

[JCamilo]

Regarding mediocre teams I agree - for example home advantage was never going to be enough for South African to win 2010, USA to win 1994, etc. If this World Cup was on "neutral soil" then Brazil would still be considered one of the favourites. Just that I think it could possibly be a double-edged sword... I hope not though, I have a soft spot for the selecao.

Yeah, but in South Africa case, Parreira's bullshit screwed any home advantage trying to impose to the team a ball possession slow game style. And USA in 1994 certainly went far, enjoying a bit of bostig.

I think with the way teams can now prepare for major tournaments, with all the advances in sports science, modern technology and everything else, the advantage that Brazil have with the climate is marginalised. In fact, I wonder how much of an advantage it truly is?

I understand some teams are training in different countries specifically chosen to help deal with the climate in Brazil, plus I'm sure other methods to help acclimatise that are not so apparent. It goes without saying that the preparation is gone over with a fine-toothed comb so no detail is overlooked.

Well, Brazil would have advantage if we had a fixed city, no such thing and we are going to be one of the teams that will travel more during the first round.

 

[Firdaus]

It's just my opinion, I think as much as we like to talk about Brazil's climate, traveling distance and other stuff now; when the games start and we try to analyze a game, I think all of us naturally will be talking about tactics, player selections, luck, referees and so on.

We are not talking abut La Paz here, and even if we were, it is not much of a factor if everybody has been playing Europe for years.

Don't forget the ball. 2010 was even more of a joke because of it. Fairly straightforward cross-field (no offence, Khalid) passes and the like were often messed up when they would have otherwise been fine with the non-space age ball.

 

[Berbatov_9]

I believe the home advantage really helped the german team in 2006. It was a squad full of talented, young, hungry players...Schweinsteiger, Podolski, Lahm, Odonkor to name a few....but they were not seen as the big favorites! By the fans of course (wishful thinking) but not by the experts or the media. Before the tournament they suffered a heavy 4:1 defeat against Italy in march - so there were many doubts and questions and no one knew what to expect from this german team.

But then the tournament started. The first win and a big relief everywhere. And with every game you could feel a special atmosphere in the country, the whole country (almost) behind them. And the team played much better than expected, motivated by the hype and excitement around them! In addition to that Klinsmann as a coach who was an excellent motivator.

It was not a great team with big stars. Kahn, Ballack but thats it. 2 years ago Germany had not passed the group stage. Many new faces in the 2006 squad then, lack of experience by some. They overachieved. And imo they had not reached the semi finals if the World Cup had not taken place at home in Germany.

First game will be the key game for Brazil: if they win it it has a positive effect. If not they will feel the pressure already. Obviously not everyone in Brazil is so happy about having the World Cup in the country. So maybe not every Brazilian is 100% behind the team. And the atmosphere maybe not as partylike as it was in Germany for example.

 

[Maturin]

Playing at home should be a big advantage to Brazil.

Who honestly can look at that Brazil team/squad and say it is the best in the world?

All Brazilians should only be thinking positively of home advantage and ideas about choking and pressure not even entertained because it is only this home advantage that has Brazil as favourites to win the World Cup. If the upcoming World Cup was being played in europe than Brazil wouldn't be favourites to win it. They would be as always a team talked about as winning it but they wouldn't be favourites as they are for this upcoming World Cup.

Neymar can't win a World Cup on his own. If there any thoughts that he can then Brazil are in trouble. They will have to play well collectively and use that home advantage as best they can.

If they fail to win it then some may well say that it was the pressure or expectation of playing at home. But then it could just be the case that they were just not good enough regardless.

I don't think they will win it.

 

[Rodriguez]

Neymar can't win a World Cup on his own. If there any thoughts that he can then Brazil are in trouble. They will have to play well collectively and use that home advantage as best they can.

Just wanted to say regarding Neymar - I think it would have been a benefit to him, and for Brazil's chances, if Kaka had been selected. Kaka would have taken off a lot of the pressure and media attention, shouldered the responsibility through press conferences as so on, which is something that he is used to doing. His experience would have also counted in the dressing room too, and although not the Kaka of old, he is still a decent player that could have been a useful option for Scolari. The pressure of performing on home soil can be offset/deflected with more experienced veterans.

 

[JCamilo]

Kaka experience is how to lose my head like a retard in a World Cup game. Thanks, but if we want former players to attract attention, call Pele.

 

[colocolo]

If HALF of your Country is goinn to be demonstrating, then Brasil HAS NO HOME court advantage !!!

Their asses are on the line just as bad as countries from across the world.

 

[SacHercegovac]

It's a field/pitch, not a court. Also the support in the stands is all that matters.

 

[Very Fat Llama]

Reggarding Brazil NT, I am trying to remember last time the NT lost a game in an official match. It goes back to Uruguay in 1950?

Is this true?

Incredible if it is.

 

[Berbatov_9]

It's a field/pitch, not a court. Also the support in the stands is all that matters.

But if the atmosphere in the country is negatively it could well affect the team. Journalists will make this a topic in press conferences, ask players in interviews etc. It can distract them.