Jump to content

reindeer

Members
  • Posts

    438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by reindeer

  1. I've been to seven cities, mostly Europeans with the exception of Seoul. I would like to go to Rome and Athens mainly for their historical importance. Sydney and LA appeal to me as cosmopolitan world cities. Munich is probably the city that I would visit mainly because of the Olympic heritage as I don't find it very interesting otherwise. Had a flight connection at MUC last year though.
  2. I would have chosen Australia for 2022. US may have been better technically but hosted it very recently and like Russia, Australia is a new region for World Cup. Concerning Qatar, I hope nothing changes now. If there's a proposal for a winter WC I wish the European clubs and nations will put up a hell of a fight against it. A decision so inmensely corrupt, made for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones should not be saved by any means. Qatar 2022 will be either forgotten quickly or remembered as an utter failure and most likely will become a "lost" World Cup, but if that's the price to pay for a complete FIFA clean up, then I'm ready to pay it.
  3. Oh, right. So you were speaking just in general terms? I was expecting you to say the magic word, white elephants. Uruguay, outside of Montevideo, doesn't need nor have a WC sized stadium, so they should plan it accordingly, for example temporary structures and downgrading them to, say, 20 000 capacities which could be used after the competition. Maybe a couple of those would be enough as 9-10 stadiums should be enough and not 12. Argentina already have the stadiums and they've been there and used for decades. They need a major renovation but that's what they would need anyway to improve safety and comfort. I don't see any reason to build a new stadium, although in some cases that might be a better option than upgrading the old one. Even then, it would be to replace an existing site. I'm not saying Arg&Uru will or should host in 2030 but I think it could be beneficial if it's done responsibly.
  4. Your analogy doesn't fit in here. It doesn't have anything to do with hosting, just shows that by reaching the final in that inaugural World Cup both nations have a long history and traditions in the competition. BTW, Argentina is not a small country, though struggling it may be. That's precisely why they might need the World Cup as it could make these countries improve their infrastructure, and then it's far from irresponsible. Besides, define success. Was South Africa not a success just because it's in the third world? Germany and South Africa were both successes but to which one was the success relatively more important? Remember, USA '94 was also critiziced before the tournament that turned out to be... a success?
  5. Actually, Uruguay did host a small tournament in 1980 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the World Cup. Of course, FIFA could do what they want, but I get the impression that they are more willing to push through their favorites, most probably because of politics and money rather than any sentimental issue. That's why for example Africa got 2010 because Blatter had to pay back their votes. With IOC it's different because there are more than 100 voters from diverse backgrounds making the decision. Argentina wouldn't be needed for some minor event but is essential for a WC with Uruguay. Uruguay used to be part of Argentina, and still today these nations are culturally and ethnically closer than probably almost any other two countries in the world. If a joint bid ever makes sense, this is it. FIFA is reluctant about them but just because Korea and Japan have an ancient rivalry, a sea between them and different languages and systems, doesn't mean it would not work somewhere else. Fittingly Argentina was also the other finalist in that 1930 tournament.
  6. I would change two things. Buenos Aires can have two stadiums, and instead of Quilmes I'd choose Vélez Sarsfield's José Amalfitani which has an easier access (next to a railway line and two important avenues) and is arguably more modern. It was also used for the 1978 WC and was the main venue in the U-20 World Championhips in 2001. Although Quilmes is not part of the actual city of Buenos Aires, it's part of the greater metropolitan area. Even if Santa Fe could be an option, it's in the same province as Rosario. I'd rather see the competition spread to the north west and Salta. Firstly, Salta is an important tourist city and could maybe better take care of the visitors than Santa Fe. It's also a very attractive city with a pleasant climate, which is a factor considering that this would be a winter World Cup. The city has quite a new stadium, built for the 2001 competition that I mentioned earlier and used for Copa América 2011. It could have a temporary enlargement, but there's no need for roof because it very rarely rains in Salta in June-July.
  7. That's what I think also. My money is on (Western) Europe hosting in 2026 with probably England or Spain. WIth the rotation rule 2026 would be too easy for Concacaf and there really isn't any need for a hosting yet with Mexico having done it twice and USA being quite recent host. I don't consider Canada an option this time. If however NA gets 2026, then 2030 is likely destined to Europe. Otherwise I'd say it's Europe 2026, Arg/Uru 2030, NA and Asia in some order for 2034-38.
  8. Maybe 2 or 3 in Uruguay would be enough They'd probably have to be partially temporary outside of Montevideo. Then the rest in Argentina. 2xBuenos Aires, Rosario, Córdoba, Mendoza, Mar del Plata, La Plata, maybe Santa Fe, Salta, Jujuy or San Juan
  9. Well, I wouldn't consider Mexico as part of South America but basically you're right if we just say Latin America. Then USA in 1994 also in Americas, not an insignificant issue from the standing point of the European television companies as it was in a relatively comfortable time zone. So far, the competition has alternated between Europe and rest of the world. Now for the first time ever there will be two consecutive tournaments outside of Europe. The World Cup is not anymore as unique as it used to be and making ridiculous decisions like taking it to places like Qatar will eventually make it even more undervalued.
  10. I wouldn't have anything against Concacaf hosting in 2026, just trying to consider the options FIFA has and how they should do it. I really can't see three World Cups in row outside of Europe. Looking beyond 2030 might be a stretch but for me the only realistic options include Europe hosting either 2026 or 2030. It's the core zone of the sport and FIFA can't alienate the traditional powers too much, they've done enough damage already. Each World Cup provides an opportunity to promote the game in one way or another but I fear that the opportunity of 2022 has been blown into a desert wind. The centennial of Arg/Uru might in the end be only a dream, who knows, so NA 2026 and Europe with England in 2030 is also an option.
  11. Unless Morocco steps up, this is North America's for taking. But the question is, should NA get it by default? I don't see any compelling reason to go to Mexico for a third time or to return to US so soon. FIFA may like Canada but to award the crown jewel to them straight after Qatar, not likely, especially if Canada's national team doesn't improve a lot and qualify for the WC. I've said earlier that FIFA may ditch their rotation rule if it suits them, after all it was created specifically only for (South) Africa to get 2010 and Brazil 2014. Europe could well host in 2026, so: 2026 England or Spain 2030 Argentina/Uruguay 2034 China
  12. I bet the tournament will return to (Western) Europe after 20 years then. The rotation policy can be changed, the rules of FIFA are made only to suit the specific political situation of each bid cycle. If Asia and Europe are ruled out, it leaves very little of the rest of the world, probably only North America. Africa is not likely to have candidates, South America is waiting for 2030. Even with Asia there'd be probably only China and they may not be willing to host it yet.
  13. That's a double plural as azzurri is plural for azzurro.
  14. It's not a prediction, I suggest you to learn read first. It was a reference to some past tournaments and in this case to the World Cup 2010.
  15. I would replace Spain and Netherlands with maybe Russia and Uruguay.
  16. I don't like this at all. I mean there is one big flaw in the new design, the need to always click in every thread the button to go to the first unread message whereas previously one got there automatically.
  17. England's bad relations with FIFA date back to the foundation of the organization and the World Cup. By the time the British entered international competitions they had been caught and even surpassed by others and since then it has been a matter of sour grapes especially for English. Not sure how much of it has to do with present mess but you can't completely ignore the past. The 1966 WC was probably a corrupt one but not an exception as the hosts have a tradition of being able to count on a "helping hand".
  18. Yes, I have thought about it too. Still, I doubt if the rotation will exist for 2026 race. It was after all necessary only to guarantee 2010 to (South) Africa and 2014 for South America. For 2018/2022 rotation played nicely too because it ensured that Europe would battle for the first and the rest of the world for the second opportunity. It's still at least five years until the bidding for 2026 starts and in that time FIFA could decide about a lot of things. They could just say that only the previous host continent is excluded. If not, there wouldn't be that many credible candidates, USA, maybe Mexico, possibly Colombia and that's almost it. Sure Morocco and Egypt could throw their hats in but after Qatar why go to an Arabic-speaking country again?
  19. Believe me Danny I know, I have not only watched matches on television but I've personally been to almost a dozen stadiums in Argentina, including Nuñez, and I know of the monumental task (no pun intended) needed to get them in shape for FIFA standards. That's why it's good to begin so early, after all Brasil has known for many many years that they would host in 2014 and they haven't used that time as well as they could have. And why the hell are they making their task even more difficult by playing in places like Cuiaba and Manaus? Of course the Monumental would have to be partly or completely demolished and rebuilt à la Soccer City or Maracana, the running tracks would also have to vanish. You say you don't see that bad stadiums in Brasil but let me remind you of these incidents: Brazil stadium seating collapses, injuring about 110 Brazil stadium collapse kills eight people
  20. I would replace Tucumán with Córdoba and start with the host cities of 1978: Buenos Aires (maybe 2 stadiums) Córdoba Rosario Mar del Plata Mendoza Add to that La Plata and then if necessary you could choose from Tucumán, Salta, Jujuy, Santa Fe etc. Finding cities in Argentina would not be a problem and there wouldn't be white elephants, in any case the stadium infrastructure needs a major renovation. In Uruguay a small stadium outside of Montevideo which could be downgraded after the tournament.
  21. Well, there are some pretty "interesting" choices also in the World Cups of 2010 and 2014 like Nelspruit, Rustenburg, Cuiaba and Manaus. Well, there are some pretty "interesting" choices also in the World Cups of 2010 and 2014 like Nelspruit, Rustenburg, Cuiaba and Manaus.
  22. Yes, and FIFA shouldn't have expected anything else as they were two individual bids originally in countries separated by history and the sea. In other cases a joint tournament could work much more naturally if there is only one organizing committee. Argentina-Uruguay is an obvious example, the Iberian bid was another. Mar del Plata and La Plata aren't small and faraway cities. The former was a host city back in 1978 and La Plata is only an hour away from Buenos Aires and has one of the most modern stadiums in South America. Major stadiums outside of Montevideo would be useless after the tournament so some kind of a temporary solution would be needed there.
  23. Add Mar del Plata and La Plata to the list. Buenos Aires could have two stadiums. Santa Fe is also one option, maybe Jujuy. It's sad that FIFA is so negative towards joint bids because of Korea and Japan although they seem to work in European Championships. The biggest obstacle I see for this bid is the imbalance as Uruguay would have no more than two, maximum three, stadia. Uruguay and Argentina share the history, much of their culture and also the Rioplatense language. So the first finalists of the World Cup ever to host the tournament together would be nice. I think Chile is too small to do it alone, outside of Santiago where would they go? I believe Colombia is much more probable as a future host.
  24. So the US keeps going downhill with it's oil based economy and infrastructure while rest of the world tries to look to the future of renewable energies. Well, what else did we expect...
  25. Is there need for so many stadiums in Canada or would they be just white elephants? Or maybe temporary stands? Can those stadiums be used for Canadian football? I'd expect Spain to bid if FIFA decides to drop the continental rotation. England may feel it's not worth it unless there are some major changes in FIFA. Italy, Germany and France have already hosted twice. Besides, Italian stadiums are just crap and I don't see that changing much in near future. Italy already bid for European Championships of 2012 and 2016, I think they got only one vote against France and Turkey. Turkey could also bid but I expect them to host first the Euros before World Cup. Morocco is a possibility, though after Qatar there isn't immediate need for Muslim/Arab hosts and that applies to Turkey too. Colombia may feel it's their turn in South America, unless CONMEBOL get's everyone behind the Argentina/Uruguay bid for 2030. Personally however, I don't see the Centenario project being successful.
×
×
  • Create New...