|
By:
Probaby just as much travelling involved in the 1994 2014 and 2018 World Cups. It's a small disadvantage. 2hrs 30 minutes as opposed to 5 hours 30 minutes in the air. Wouldn't shift the chances by more than 1%
|
|
By:
Playing at home at Wembley is about 0.25 of a goal adv. Prolly makes it 0.28.
|
|
By:
New York to LA is 6 hours
|
|
By:
Incidentally Home adv in the MLS is about 0.5 of a goal, which is as high as it gets. But the reason for this is that you are only allowed 2 or 3 charter flights a season. I'm sure the Danish had every assistance in making the journey as smooth as possible. Arguably, given Italy's COVID position on UK tourists, the English teams journey might have been worse.
|
|
By:
Even the host nations in 1994, 2014 and 2018 travelled more distance and more frequently than England did. Every team travelled, even the hosts. England have to travel a short trip only once. The game v Germany should have been played in Dublin.
It is a big advantage to not have to do that as much as fatigue etc is building the longer the tournament goes on. There are already fine margins on the purely sporting side so anything else is a big factor, even 1% but it is a lot more than that. |
|
By:
Flying to Rome is of course 2 flights.
They should drop the oxygen masks for them during the flights. |
|
By:
;;
|