Was this the best world cup ever?

In my opinion, yes. Equaled the record number of goals and there are tons of stories to come out of it.

• Brazil get smashed 7-1 at home and then 3-0. Fred is booed into retirement as is Scolari and the rest of the team is also booed by the home fans
  
• Klose breaks the all time goal scoring record
  
• Suarez bites again sparking a £75m transfer move
  
• Previous champions Spain are dicked 5-1 and are sent home at the earliest possible stage
  
• Little Costa Rica qualify from a group with Italy, England and Uruguay in and reach the quarters
  
• Neymar gets a broken back sending everyone in Brazil crazy
  
• Tim Krul gets unconventionally subbed on and wins a penalty shoot out for Holland
  
• Loads of anti-world cup protests before and during the event
  

There is probably more I've forgotten, but there's a lot to remember about this one.

It had nothing on 1954.

In recent memory, yeah.

It was the best World Cup I've ever seen (98' on) and judging by the reactions of the old heads, probably the best of the "modern era".

My favorite was the 2010 WC

It also had scintillating wing wizardry from Glen Johnson in the match against Uruguay.

You forgot the first ever water breaks in World Cup history which resulted in only evening games being played in Manaus.  This is a big deal if the 2022 World Cup is actually played in Qatar.  It will be interesting to see the future of a few stadiums that are not in a football popular area.

Weather130 wrote:You forgot the first ever water breaks in World Cup history which resulted in only evening games being played in Manaus.  This is a big deal if the 2022 World Cup is actually played in Qatar.  It will be interesting to see the future of a few stadiums that are not in a football popular area.

And the shaving cream and goal line technology making their debuts.

About time y'all caught up to the rest of the world with the foam

I have my doubts about whether any matches at all should have taken place in Manaus.  Of the 8 teams who played there, 6 lost their next matches and only one won their next match (the other was Honduras who were eliminated after playing there).  At the very least these extreme conditions should warrant an extra rest day.

Interesting. Were the six teams decent?

Glen Miller wrote:Interesting. Were the six teams decent?

Matter of opinion I suppose. They were England, Italy, Switzerland, the United States of America, Cameroon and Croatia. Portugal were the only team who managed to win, beating Ghana.

Worse then that was the fact that they spent millions of dollars on a stadium that was used 4 times in the WC, and won't have much value now.

Scuba Steve wrote:Worse then that was the fact that they spent millions of dollars on a stadium that was used 4 times in the WC, and won't have much value now.

So what? Large sporting events cost a lot of money, they're not supposed to be profitable financially. Brazil has a GDP upwards of $2tn, they can afford the odd white elephant stadium for the privilege of hosting the World Cup.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Scuba Steve wrote:Worse then that was the fact that they spent millions of dollars on a stadium that was used 4 times in the WC, and won't have much value now.

So what?  Large sporting events cost a lot of money, they're not supposed to be profitable financially.  Brazil has a GDP upwards of $2tn, they can afford the odd white elephant stadium for the privilege of hosting the World Cup.

I think Manuas is compounded by the fact that it's in a place only accessible by water or air.

Oh, I'm not sure the people of Brazil, who paid for the stadiums, share the same sentiment as you.

dena wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

So what?  Large sporting events cost a lot of money, they're not supposed to be profitable financially.  Brazil has a GDP upwards of $2tn, they can afford the odd white elephant stadium for the privilege of hosting the World Cup.

I think Manuas is compounded by the fact that it's in a place only accessible by water or air.

True, but it's largely served it's purpose now. Any legacy benefits are just gravy. Nobody hosts a World Cup or an Olympic Games because it makes good financial sense, they do it because of the intangible benefits of a World Cup.

Scuba Steve wrote:Oh, I'm not sure the people of Brazil, who paid for the stadiums, share the same sentiment as you.

Fuck them, if they didn't want to host a World Cup with everything that entails they shouldn't have elected a government which would commit to it.

I'm sure there are other stadiums that would have done just fine with some renovation.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Scuba Steve wrote:Oh, I'm not sure the people of Brazil, who paid for the stadiums, share the same sentiment as you.

Fuck them, if they didn't want to host a World Cup with everything that entails they shouldn't have elected a government which would commit to it.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

SBSP wrote:I'm sure there are other stadiums that would have done just fine with some renovation.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Fuck them, if they didn't want to host a World Cup with everything that entails they shouldn't have elected a government which would commit to it.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

Maybe, but criticising one my posts for being among my most stupid is like saying a woman is one of the least attractive supermodels, chances are she's still fantastic.

Brazil is a representative democracy, the government acts on behalf of the people and they went for the World Cup along with all it entails. That's high spending, it's a wide spread of stadia across the country, it's ceding legal authority to FIFA, it's shutting down other sporting events in the country to make sure they don't conflict with the World Cup, all of these are the costs that a country's government agrees to pay on behalf of it's citizens in exchange for it's citizens getting the intangible benefits of hosting a World Cup. That's the system and it works.

If they wanted to the people could have voted in a government that wanted to withdraw from the World Cup but they didn't, they just fucking bitch and riot about the drawbacks when it's too late to do anything about it and they know they'll get all benefits regardless. Well fuck them and fuck you.

They could have easily hosted without wasting millions on a stadium that's never going to be used again.

You're also assuming those who are protesting voted in favour of hosting, which I doubt is the case.

SBSP wrote:They could have easily hosted without wasting millions on a stadium that's never going to be used again.

FIFA requires a good geographical spread of stadia.

SBSP wrote:You're also assuming those who are protesting voted in favour of hosting, which I doubt is the case.

No I'm not, it wasn't decided in a fucking referendum you dimwit.

It's a representative democracy, the government makes decisions on behalf of and with the consent of the people, that's how modern states operate. The fact that a government that wanted the World Cup got in, and that successive governments got in who didn't pledge to withdraw from hosting also got in, tells you something about what the people of Brazil wanted. If withdrawing from hosting would have been a big vote winner, everyone would have pledged to do it and it would have happened. That's how democracy works. It didn't happen, the people of Brazil wanted the World Cup and they got it, then started crying about things that are part and parcel of it.

FIFA asked Brazil to use 10 cities. Brazil asked FIFA if they could use 12. FIFA agreed. Brazil didn't have to go to Manaus to build a $200m+ stadium that would get used four times in the World Cup and left for a fourth division team to fill.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Maybe, but criticising one my posts for being among my most stupid is like saying a woman is one of the least attractive supermodels

 

Christ, I know how democracy works. Just replace "voted in favour of hosting" with "voted for a government in favour of hosting" in my post if you want to be like that.
You don't vote for representatives based on one issue, and even if they did, who's to say the ones protesting voted for those in favour of the World Cup?

Blaming all the people for the decisions of some is a stupid and flawed viewpoint.

Scuba Steve wrote:FIFA asked Brazil to use 10 cities. Brazil asked FIFA if they could use 12. FIFA agreed. Brazil didn't have to go to Manaus to build a $200m+ stadium that would get used four times in the World Cup and left for a fourth division team to fill.

Who is to say that Manaus wasn't one of the original ten? It was the only stadium in the north east and they need a geographical spread.

SBSP wrote:Christ, I know how democracy works. Just replace "voted in favour of hosting" with "voted for a government in favour of hosting" in my post if you want to be like that.
You don't vote for representatives based on one issue, and even if they did, who's to say the ones protesting voted for those in favour of the World Cup?

Blaming all the people for the decisions of some is a stupid and flawed viewpoint.

Don't you understand that if hosting the world cup was genuinely unpopular then it would have been a vote winner to withdraw from hosting it? Either the people who were protesting are a load of greedy cunts who want to have all the benefits of a World Cup without paying for it, or they're a small minority who wanted to ruin everyone else's fun because they lost the argument. Either way, fuck them.

There was no original ten. There was an original 12.

Scuba Steve wrote:Worse then that was the fact that they spent millions of dollars on a stadium that was used 4 times in the WC, and won't have much value now.

I do not think the Manaus area does not have a football team in top three tiers of Brazilian football so it could easily be considered a waste.  Brazil is a huge nation and a large chunk of the central part of the nation did not host any game, I guess it is not a football hungry part of the nation but would it have been better, I do not know that.