PBH / Colombia / Forums (active) Travelguide Cheap hostels Pictures

Futbol played way up high (and is it an advantage?)

I was bored the other day and started checking out the various futbol leagues in the Americas to see which countries first division teams played at the highest altitudes. The Paraguayan National Team ascribes their WCQ success to the large percentage of players that they have from the Mexican league, which is a high altitude league. Of the 18 teams, 12 play in stadiums a mile or more in elevation.

I started checking out the South American leagues, especially the Andean nations figuring that they should be right up there. Yes and no.

Bolivia, of course, has the highest percentage of high altitude teams at 9 of 12. Ecuador was tied with Mexico in high altitude percentage at 8 of 12. Peru was a disappointing surprise at only 5 of 16.
How did Colombia do? Only 6 of 18 teams play at an elevation of a mile or more which was quite surprising to me.

I would think playing in low oxygen environments might be a bit of an advantage but if it were really the case, the Bolivians would have more than their share of champion athletes and outstanding futbol players. Which they clearly don't. Nevertheless they are very hard to beat in La Paz. In CONCACAF Champions league action, MLS teams have never beaten a Mexican team in 16 games in Mexico and I think altitude (not to mention the low level of play in the MLS) is certainly a factor.

By utopiacowboy on Sep 19, 2009, 21:30 in Friendly Talkzone.

manINred says on Sep 20, 2009, 09:17:

It definitely has its advantages. The Paraguayans have a two-fold advantage:

a) Playing at high altitudes, they learn to generate/absorb more oxygen since the air is thinner, as you pointed out. This has fitness advantages when playing other teams at low advantages. Why do you think Ethiopians and Kenyans usually run away with the marathon races? Because they train at high altitudes! The benefits, I assume, would translate to football.

b) Being used to playing at high altitudes eliminates the important altitude advantage that teams like Ecuador or Bolivia hold when Paraguay visit them. Paraguay held their own against Ecuador 1-1 in Quito in qualifying. They beat Colombia in Bogota, which has a relatively high altitude, but they lost to Bolivia 4-2 in La Paz.

Bolivia is hindered by having a poor national squad. A team like Ecuador, which is competitive, takes advantage of altitude by stealing 3 points off the Argentinas and Brazils, and altitude combined with their skill helped them greatly in making 2002 and 2006 world cups. Paraguay has a decently skilled squad, has done for awhile, having made the past couple of world cups. They will make this one as well. Bolivia just isn't good enough, even with the advantage of altitude, to make the world cup (yet).

And the Mexican example is good: Just look at the Montreal Impact of last year. They held a huge advantage going to Mexico, but got absolutely pummelled. I would think even a Real Madrid, Barcelona, Milan or Manchester United would struggle, given that they are not at all used to playing at such high altitudes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kenblanquito says on Sep 23, 2009, 12:58:

England probably had their best international football team in 1970, the World Cup was in Mexico and they struggled with fatigue and had to adjust their game to a more continental style. Result, out in the quarterfinals when really they should have been at least finalists.
Physically, there can be little doubt that 2 equally able teams, when one is used to altitude and the other not, will reveal an advantage to the former. As manlNred points out in another manner.

0 funny, 0 helpful.