football world cup 2010 (2024)

i desperately hate the sissy game spain plays. imho, the style of play from germany is the most interesting (and effective) to watch. too bad mueller was robbed of the chance to play.

really... this world cup was a long list of negatives and rarely was world class football achieved.

at least we have the champions league...

joebshmoe said:

really... this world cup was a long list of negatives and rarely was world class football achieved.

Click to expand...

It's funny how everyone was saying South Africa wouldn't beable to deliver a decent World Cup & from all acounts they did an excellent job. It was the Footballers who didn't deliver.

But I agree, it wasn't a great World Cup. Overall I think it will be remembered for those annoying horns, that dodgy ball & maybe the last World Cup without Goal Line Technology.

actually, most reports regarding conditions was pretty terrible. the fields were not very acceptable - especially for the world class level. you can especially tell when anyone slid on the turf - huge chunks would be removed, and when it rained the fields were even worse.

i think it is a terrible idea to bring the world cup to countries who don't even have their own infrastructure in place to do so...

joebshmoe said:

actually, most reports regarding conditions was pretty terrible. the fields were not very acceptable - especially for the world class level. you can especially tell when anyone slid on the turf - huge chunks would be removed, and when it rained the fields were even worse.

i think it is a terrible idea to bring the world cup to countries who don't even have their own infrastructure in place to do so...

Click to expand...

I never saw any of these reports. Most reports I read gave glowing feedback about conditions.
And as for infrastructure - South Africa is not all mud huts and elephants, you know. SA has successfully hosted the African Cup of Nations, Rugby World Cup, Cricket World Cup, and now the Football World Cup. A few years back there was security concerns in India during the elections, and they had to move the cricket 20/20 league at short notice. South Africa was chosen due to, amongst other things, suitable infrastructure.

The problem with football was that in SA it was a traditionally "black" sport - which means no funds from Apartheid government, which means poor stadiums etc. The World Cup was seen as an opportunity to redress those wrongs, and to galvanise certain necessary transport and other infrastructural upgrades (like every host country does!)

I was very impressed with SA as World Cup hosts. The standard was world class.

LOL are you referring to all the stadiums that they have been building for the last few years? half of the stadiums were fully created. the rest were completely renovated.

FIFA created a rule to rotate the world cup around the continents (read as "football confederations"). immediately after they gave south africa the bid, they retracted that rule. in 2007 they were not - in any way - expected to pull it off. initially, it was rumored that WC2010 would be moved from south africa due to lack of preparation.

south africa was ridiculed for their practice of evicting locals to build condos to host all the foreigners set to be flooding the country.

a few of the stadiums were over a mile above sealevel, drawing a lot of concerns about player health and the impact of conditions on play (and the ball).

the funniest bit to me... the ball. i've played with the jabulani and its impact seems pretty over-exaggerated. seems fine to me.

...FIFA and south africa artificially created an environment to host the world cup in their country. that is what i think is completely unnecessary, and i'm guessing that without forcing WC2010 to be hosted in africa, this would NEVER have happened.

I said the *old* stadiums were poor, not the new ones.
And whether FIFA jimmied the system or not, SA hosted a successful World Cup in regards to infrastructure etc.
As for your comment on stadiums being a mile up - you do realise that Johannesburg, SA's largest city, lies on a plateau which is that high. Or do you think they should only have used the coastal city and cut out half the country, including the capital?

And they didn't "evict locals to build condos" (where do you get your news from?!) - the real problem was the ban on local business activities in a zone around the stadiums. Street sellers, restaurants and shops were closed down or forcibly removed due to FIFA regulations. That was ridiculous. But, they found a way - there was a HUGE amount of people selling stuff at the car parks, train stations and fan walks. Most people bought there instead of the "Bud and Mac" forced fare at the stadium.

I don't quite get what your beef is with SA. I think it was great - certainly comparable to, if not better than Germany 4 years ago.

news and info? in-game commentary (watched/listened to almost all matches, mix of BBC and ESPN commentators) and teh internet, which, i'm guessing, is where everyone else gets there news from nowadays.

actually, housing issues and field conditions i thought were relatively highly covered...
http://www.nutmegradio.com/world-cup-ho ... -the-poor/
http://links.org.au/node/1738

i have nothing against SA at all... it is just:
a> use a country that already has things covered for a world cup
a.1> choose a country with an appropriate premier football/sports league (which, by nature, would probably have things covered)
b> build everything to support a world cup

to me - from a sustainability & social issues standpoint - the answer is pretty easy.