 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
i think bods is right on this. when i played in my younger teens on a travelling team i played in varying climates and the worst climates were the ridiculously hot places. and i always played better after coming back to cooler places after that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
it's not a matter of taking precedent, it's a matter of peaceful co-existance. it would unreasonable to expect the FA, and other european leagues to change their entire program for the world cup, just as it would be unreasonable for every european FA to start having games in june/july, and therefore making most players unavailable for the world cup.
yes the development of soccer globally is important, but to let in teams that simply aren't good enough only damages the competition. |
peaceful coexistance is codeword for "i dont want change." which is the predominant attitude in all fo european sports. the health and popularity of the worldcup is so much vastly more important than a few weeks of european competition every 4 years that its a joke.
and lets look at all the damage the 8-0 win did. first it actually had scoring so it was inherently more interesting to watch. second millions of arabs got to root for someone, not only in that game but in several more games. third it created a lot of things to talk about because it was anomolous.
what did it do bad? someone got blown out? OH MY GOD NO. help!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
could you explain to me why exactly it is so important to have more teams in the world cup?
how did letting a team like saudi in damage the world cup? well although the thinngs you listed are positive (well not the thing about 8-0 but about the arab supporters anyway), it made the group much, much less of a competition. look at england's group in 2002, sweden, argentina and nigeria, all pretty competant and respectable teams, while there might have been favorites for who was to go through there was a real competition for the two qualification spots. in germany's group there wasn't, it wasn't a case that any team could go through, quite the opposite in fact, it was as good as giving germany a by to the second round. that is why it is bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
could you explain to me why exactly it is so important to have more teams in the world cup?
how did letting a team like saudi in damage the world cup? well although the thinngs you listed are positive (well not the thing about 8-0 but about the arab supporters anyway), it made the group much, much less of a competition. look at england's group in 2002, sweden, argentina and nigeria, all pretty competant and respectable teams, while there might have been favorites for who was to go through there was a real competition for the two qualification spots. in germany's group there wasn't, it wasn't a case that any team could go through, quite the opposite in fact, it was as good as giving germany a by to the second round. that is why it is bad. |
so ur upset germany had an easier road to the second round? this is always going to happen. there will always be weak groups and strong groups. I think one thing u severely lack perspective on is how important it is for a relatively unknown nation to make a worldcup appearance and how much they get hyped for that. it is amazingly good for soccer everytime south korea/japan/saudi arabia appear in the worldcup, it turns the entire nation into a frenzy. sure sometimes the teams they field aren't as competitive as snobs in europe like. but FIFA is smart enough to realize that fielding 20 teams from europe is detrimental to soccer.
while giving other nations births is an amazing bonus and catalyst for the proliferation of global soccer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
i have no problem with weak groups and strong groups, but this went beyond that, it was, in effect giving germany a by to the second round. it was like my local pub team playing manchester united.
not that i'm against giving other nations a chance, but that can't be at the expense of the competitivness of the...errr...competition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
i have no problem with weak groups and strong groups, but this went beyond that, it was, in effect giving germany a by to the second round. it was like my local pub team playing manchester united.
not that i'm against giving other nations a chance, but that can't be at the expense of the competitivness of the...errr...competition. |
FIFA disagrees. FIFA has this enormous stage that is the worldcup. and uses that stage to promote soccer globally. one of the ways(and by far one of the most effective) is to let newer/weaker countries enter. I'm sorry u disagree w/ that. I'm sure if u ran it there would be 25 european teams and 7 south american. but thats just not how it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by reds4ever
I know this is a sweeping statement to say the least, but the reason Americans think FOOTBALL rules are easily changeable is that you don't really understand the game and it's nuances |
we've also changed lots of things about baseball. our national past time. we've tightened the strike zone, lowered the mound, made the parks smaller, brought in the DH.
we are much more accepting of change we perceive as good.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-06-2003 18:23
and this necessitates afternoon playing.
|