Jump to content

reindeer

Members
  • Posts

    438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by reindeer

  1. I agree. I was also quite disappointed with London and rated it 7/10, but Sochi was an improvement and I'd give it a 9. I thought Sochi's ceremony was visually stunning and more cohesive than London's. Also it suited television viewers and was better directed for tv with some great angles like from the cars during the post-war period. This was also more classy and low-key than I expected but in a good way as with Russia there might be a risk of bombastic, near megalomaniac and tacky show. It might have lacked a bit of originality and there were some dull moments but I guess that's almost unavoidable with a show as long as this. The entrance of the athletes with the maps showing was nice although the empty benches behind didn't look that great, but that again might have been unavoidable with the athletes taking their seats there. Unlike many I actually thought the music was ok, nothing extraordinary but captivating enough. The girl felt like seen that been there but I found the countdown very beautiful although perhaps not that surprising and adventerous either. Overall a very good mix of on one hand traditional human mass ceremony and use of modern technology, and on the other humour and classic cultural elements.
  2. I'm not aware of that because geographically Mexico is also part of North America. Even if it's linguistically and culturally different from US and Canada it's still part of the same continent. Technically you could and should extend North America all the way to include Panama and the Caribbean islands, but even if we accepted the concept of Central America, Mexico would certainly not belong to it.
  3. Well, in Finland the national broadcasting company Yle has an app for mobile devices that you can use to watch any live feed from Sochi as well, so I guess that fits your description. There used to be a licence similar to BBC, though it was only loosely enforced or controlled, but the service is now tax-funded. In Sweden the national broadcaster SVT lost the rights to Viasat so for the first time the Games are being shown on commercial service and a cable card is needed.
  4. I would guess it's also a matter of keeping costs down, especially in college stadiums. Still there were many indoor stadiums in the US before they became popular in Europe. Well, maybe that's because there was no need for natural grass in the playing field. With or without a roof, it's mind-numbing how many large stadiums there are in USA, even considering the size of the country. I think if you made a list of stadiums with a capacity exceeding 70k, United States would easily beat the whole European continent. In a future World Cup they should not propose any venue smaller than that.
  5. There were several stadiums in South Africa 2010 which were mostly uncovered with a roof over just some stands. USA has the advantage of being able to propose stadiums which would all have a capacity larger than the average attendance of 1994, by far the all time record.
  6. In fact you can't directly blame Blatter because Qatar didn't help his cause. On the contrary, his biggest adversary at the time of voting was Mohamed bin Hammam, a Qatari and the president of the AFC. Blatter is thought to have supported USA for 2022. Of course he is indirectly responsible of it all due to making FIFA the mess it is. Reports from FIFA have said that Blatter has been enraged with some Exco members because of their voting for Qatar.
  7. No, there were 12. South Africa had 10 in nine cities. The minimum amount I believe is 9 stadiums. For Uruguay it would be decent to ask for three stadiums, with two of them in Montevideo. Anything above it is in my opinion quite irresponsible for such a small country. While Argentina could host alone, they need Uruguay because of the Centennial theme. It was Uruguay after all who hosted the 1930 World Cup. With the Centennial theme Argentina alone can't take advantage of something their neighbours did, simple as that.
  8. No, that's a preposterous idea to put it mildly. Look lad, you're maybe young but you should really use some common sense here. Just because Qatar is putting up a vanity project doesn't mean that a developing country like Uruguay without the same natural resources should start building needless stadiums of their own. Upgrading the country's existing football infrastructure to modern standards should be ok, but constructing a bunch of white elephants is another thing entirely.
  9. 50-50 split is simply impossible in this case and FIFA isn't normally keen on joint bids, but this one might be an exception so they could bend the rules if they see it necessary. Normally Argentina would want to host alone but they understand that this time taking Uruguay along will increase their chances to host. Otherwise Argentina would probably have to wait longer and Uruguay would never host the World Cup again. Both countries see this as a unique opportunity and want to take advantage of it. The centenary theme may carry this project to a victory even though it would not stand a chance in a normal case.
  10. Looks a bit of cheap solution leaving a lot of space but not enough for an athletics track. Not that there's any need for it, though. I haven't checked where the competitions are to be held in 2018 but such a big stadium isn't needed for it.
  11. I'll just quote myself from another thread here and the post that I answered to: I guess every one of 1978 sites should be used to minimize the risk of white elephants. They are all being used regularly anyway and just need renovation. Generally stadiums in Argentina need to be updated so this could provide an opportunity to do that. Uruguay should find a two or three modern stadiums useful too, at least in Montevideo. Sorry, I messed up. I meant to post this in another topic.
  12. I'll just quote myself from another thread here and the post that I answered to: I guess every one of 1978 sites should be used to minimize the risk of white elephants. They are all being used regularly anyway and just need renovation. Generally stadiums in Argentina need to be updated so this could provide an opportunity to do that. Uruguay should find a two or three modern stadiums useful too, at least in Montevideo.
  13. Well, I thought we would just have two new winter frontiers in a row in 2014 and 2018...
  14. Morocco as a Northern African nation and a four-time loser would be a good choice and probably the only realistic alternative for Concacaf IF another Arabic country wasn't hosting only four years earlier.
  15. South Africa truly is a football-crazy nation, at least the black population, Qatar was a farce that never should have happened and USA had some history in the sport plus a multicultural, 300 million population that had shown itself to be able to get excited about major sport events and create biggest shows on Earth which they did in '94, something that their northern neighbours would most likely find very hard to match. I'm not completely against Canada hosting but I hope it doesn't happen too soon after Qatar. I also expect Canada to show some progress in the game before bidding to host. I don't want to see a WC with lacklustre atmosphere, third or fourth rate host team and empty stadiums. In terms of World Cup hosting, Canada to me seems like a smaller, more bland version of the US.
  16. It's true, in Russia only a relatively small part of the territory is used. I almost wish that Siberia was also included.
  17. The teams seem to prefer finding their base camps in the south despite long distances due to a cooler climate that is more suitable for training.
  18. Besides, Atlanta wasn't even among the WC host cities and the stadiums and other infastructure were ready and in place for 1994 well before the tournament with no need for major construction projects. It's funny but as I recall I didn't even realize or consciously think at the time about US hosting both events within such short time. I guess with Germany and Mexico it would have been different. Those two, especially Mexico, are better examples to compare with Brazil,and even though the competitions were smaller the organising countries were also smaller than Brazil. Of course it would have been ideal to wait for a decade or two before Brazil hosted these events but in a way, as I wasn't there to witness 1968-1974, I like the idea that at least once in our lifetimes I see a rising power being put in the limelight twice in only two years.
  19. That's because the Brazilians didn't want to make the decision themselves, but rather preferred to push the responsibility to FIFA and still insisted on using 12 stadiums instead of a more manageable number! Are you confusing the official FIFA approval of host cities with the actual choice of them? It's not a standard procedure for FIFA to select the cities, the local organising committee should do that like in Germany and South Africa, who by the way chose the cities a little more than four years before their respective tournaments, so Brazil knew the host cities almost a year earlier than the previous two hosts. I know you're not a fan of international and British media, but I have an article of a journalist who has lived in Brazil for more than 20 years. http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/worldcupcentral/id/4?cc=5739 Should I also add this piece from another article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-19705712 If you have some source claiming that FIFA didn't allow Brazil to choose the cities, I'd be interested in seeing them, whether they are Brazilian and in Portuguese or some other language. You mean like this one? http://www.marca.com/2013/07/01/futbol/copa_confederaciones/espana/1372671000.html
  20. FIFA's task is to approve the choice of host cities but not necessarily to choose them. Germany and South Africa didn't leave the task for FIFA, their OC's just picked the cities and were then given the seal of approval. Another thing is the amount of cities, 12, when FIFA recommended only 9 or 10. That's just asking for trouble as more cities means more risks especially in a place like Brazil. Even then, five years shoud have been enough to build the stadiums on time. You can talk all you want about laws and such but for me this just bad organisation. Good luck though, hopefully everything goes well.
  21. Yes, but FIFA had to choose the sites because Brazil didn't do it themselves. The fact remains that there has been massive timewaste due to Brazilian bureaucracy and corruption, that is Teixeira's politics and willingness to spread the tournament to 12 cities when less would have been enough.
  22. If the field is weak like last time then maybe Istanbul could take it but I would advise them not to go against South Africa or Paris, that would be simply foolish. Also if Turkey is again offered the 2024 Euros on a silver plate they should take it. One thing bothering me is now that it will take at least 12 years for Europe to host again after London and maybe at least another 12 years after 2024 to host after that with potential hosts from Africa and North America lining up before them, what would European IOC members think of Turkey and Istanbul? And I don't mean those that come from potential future host countries but rather those who come from smaller nations and don't have that obvious national interest. Would they see Istanbul as a European host or would they rather wait for a more traditional Western European city?
  23. You're right, FIFA has an international calendar and the clubs must release their players during the official match dates some of which may mean even long absences like in African Championship tournament that is played in January or February. In practice though, if the World Cup was played in winter I believe FIFA couldn't do it if the major leagues didn't give their consent, because that could be really harmful to their authority that's already being questioned. If however there was only one league opposing the switch, most likely the English PL, then FIFA could go along with this plan.
  24. No, on the contrary, the top seeded teams will each have their own group so Brazil and Argentina definitely won't face each other in the group stage. In fact, due to the continental balance South American teams will be in separate groups.
  25. Following that logic San Marino should be able to beat Italy, after all it's only 11 vs. 11. You must not be that silly. A big population is an advantage in sports BUT it doesn't guarantee anything.
×
×
  • Create New...